Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Remploy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. John Hutton: I shall begin our short debate on the future of Remploy by making what I hope will be regarded as a non-controversial observation. It is that the Government have a special responsibility towards people with disabilities. One aspect of discharging that responsibility is to ensure the provision of worthwhile employment and training opportunities. Remploy has been an essential element in meeting that responsibility for over 50 years. Indeed, 1995 marks the company's golden jubilee.
Remploy was formed 50 years ago to meet the needs of those disabled during the second world war. Naturally, things have changed considerably since then. The company now employs nearly 9,000 people in over 90 factories spread throughout the United Kingdom. Most of those employees suffer from a disability and would be unlikely to obtain employment if it were not for Remploy, or undertake self-employment. The company is, therefore, a vital bridge to the world at work for people with disabilities. With employment comes independence, a sense of self-worth and esteem.
It should be acknowledged at the beginning of the debate that Remploy has been a huge success story since 1945. Sales, for example, increased last year by nearly 2 per cent. to over £126 million. It is forecast that turnover this year will approach £135 million. Perhaps one of the greatest success stories in recent years has been on the export front, where sales have more than doubled from £4.3 million to nearly £10 million. Remploy's staff deserve a big round of applause from us all, both management and staff.
My immediate concern is more about the future of Remploy. I am less concerned about its past. The best way of proceeding in future and guaranteeing job security for all the workers connected with Remploy is for the Government to demonstrate their full commitment to the work force and the company. I hope that the debate, which is the first about Remploy on the Floor of the House for many years, will help to focus attention on precious jobs and on the important role that the company fulfils in helping to meet the needs of people with disabilities.

Mr. David Harris: Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate. Does he accept that apart from the disability factor, Remploy performs a particularly useful function in areas such as the one which I represent,

which are far away from main centres of employment? These are areas where people with disabilities would have no chance of getting a job. The Remploy factory at Penzance does marvellous work. The House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate.

Mr. Hutton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I am bound to agree with everything that he said. If we examine the history of Remploy and how its factories were located throughout the United Kingdom, it is clear that the siting of the company's workplaces had as much to do with social considerations as economic ones. We should not lose sight of that when we consider the future of the company.
If the company is to continue to meet the needs of people with disabilities, it must have the fullest possible support from Government. Many people, both within and outside Remploy, believe that that support has not been forthcoming in recent years. I share their concern.
In the short time that is available to us this morning, I shall focus my comments on Remploy in the north-west, and especially on the future of the textile group and the operation of the new interwork scheme. I know that many other hon. Members want to speak, and I am sure that they will raise other issues with the Minister. I am delighted to say that there are many representatives in the Gallery today from the work force of Remploy, and many of them have come down from my constituency. Most of them are members of the GMB. From my constituency, there are members of the Barrow Five branch of the GMB, my own branch.
In the north-west, there are 13 Remploy factories, employing more than 1,000 people with disabilities. Remploy's Barrow factory has 44 employees. Six of the factories in the north-west are in the textiles group, including the factory in my constituency. The major customer of the textiles group is the Ministry of Defence, which accounts for two thirds of the group's work load.
The Government's decision last August to scrap the priority suppliers scheme and to replace it with the special contracts arrangement is causing a major problem, for the textiles group and other parts of Remploy as well. The whole episode surrounding the scrapping of the priority suppliers scheme has demonstrated a degree of incompetence and indifference on the part of the Government towards the employment of people with disabilities. There remains the very strong impression that the Employment Secretary used the new European directive on public procurement as an excuse to scrap the priority suppliers scheme. It was the public outcry, which resulted from the Government's action to scrap the scheme, that forced Ministers to devise a replacement scheme, the so-called "special contracts arrangement".
The new directive on public procurement practices should have included a similar provision to article 25(4) of the original 1977 directive. That would have protected the continued operation of the priority suppliers scheme. Apparently, according to the European Commission, no such request was made by the British Government during the renegotiation of the supplies directive. I believe that, in that respect, the Government handled the negotiations negligently.
The limits that apply to the new preferential arrangements are simply inadequate and will, as a result, exempt many Government contracts from their scope. Most MOD contracts will exceed the limits set by the


special contracts arrangement scheme, and Remploy will therefore have no opportunity to match the lowest tender being submitted by other companies that employ able-bodied workers.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I understand the fear that the hon. Gentleman is expressing, but the actualité has been rather different. As he will know, the findings of the Employment Select Committee's report on this issue were that Remploy has won contracts since the introduction of the special contracts scheme, above the threshold, with the Ministry of Defence, and that quite a number of those contracts are very substantial indeed.

Mr. Hutton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments, but I think that he should speak to the people in Remploy, who would give him a different view about what the future holds under the special contracts arrangement scheme. The reality, if I can press him on this point, is slightly different. I believe that the changes will mean that Remploy's textiles business in particular, which is already competing with imports from the far east, will not have priority in bidding for the large contracts that it needs to survive. Business for the textiles division is drying up, and some factories are getting close to the point where they are running out of work.
That is not—I need to make this clear—the result of any peace dividend. The MOD budget, to 1988, amounts to more than £100 million for textile-related business. The bulk of the contracts, however, are now going to the far east, to purchase clothing produced by cheap labour. That affects the job security and employment of severely disabled workers.
Recently, because of the lack of textile contracts, Remploy made a commercial decision to close the Alfreton factory, which, I believe, is in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State, and the work force was shifted to a new location. I am aware that the work force at Alfreton was offered alternative employment at Mansfield. For able-bodied people, the extra time involved in travelling to work in a new location may be an inconvenience, but for severely disabled people with special needs it can be uncomfortable and distressing.
I believe that the Government's whole handling of the issue has been abysmal. The consequences for Remploy, and the textiles group in particular, could be very serious indeed. The consolidated supplies directive, which has been used as, the excuse for scrapping the priority suppliers scheme, could not have been intended to have had that effect on companies such as Remploy, which is fulfilling a social need of employing people with special disabilities. I believe that the case for the Government to rethink their whole strategy in this area is very persuasive.
Before I leave the point about the textiles group and its future in the north-west, I bring to the attention of the Minister an issue that deserves consideration by the Government. If MOD contracts that previously went to Remploy factories in the UK are going to the far east, I would draw the Minister's attention to the work that was done by Remploy at Barrow during the Gulf war, when the Army and the other services desperately needed new and additional equipment: uniforms for the desert, and special biological and protective suits.
During the Gulf crisis, the work force at Barrow

worked long overtime hours, throughout the weekends, to produce the equipment that the armed services needed to discharge their responsibilities. If an increasing volume of that business goes to the far east, to countries outside the United Kingdom, there can be no guarantee that such an opportunity for the MOD will be available in times of crisis. The MOD has always said how satisfied it is with the work that comes from Remploy. If we push those contracts abroad to the far east and take them away from Remploy, there is a strategic implication that the Government need to take on board.
I shall now say a few words about the interwork scheme. Concern has been expressed about recent statements made by the company about the size and shape of the Remploy work force and the implementation of the interwork scheme, under which Remploy workers are being encouraged to move out of supported workplaces and into supported placements in open employment. The chief executive of Remploy has said that he hopes to expand the interwork scheme from the present figure of 1,700 to nearly 5,000. He also said, in the company's golden jubilee pamphlet:
What I see for our future is far fewer products being produced … leading to fewer factories and fewer people.
I believe that Remploy workers have genuine concerns about a move to low-skilled jobs with poor training and less security, in inaccessible workplaces. There is some evidence of a failure to observe the basic requirement: an employer under the interwork scheme must not pay less than the Remploy rate for the job. There are also fears that interwork will result in the creaming off of the less disabled, leaving those with the greatest disability in the factories to compete for what contract work becomes available. I believe that that would be totally unacceptable.
It would be helpful if the Minister would provide details to the House today of the type of work being undertaken under the interwork scheme, and the extent of the protections that exist against abuse.
I shall end my remarks now, as other hon. Members want to speak. I shall end on a positive note. Labour Members believe that the case for supported employment for people with disabilities is as strong today as it was in 1945 when Ernie Bevin, as Minister for Labour, set up Remploy.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give a firm promise to support Remploy and its work force into the future and to ensure that it is still able to celebrate many more anniversaries over the next few years.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on his success in obtaining the debate. I had a letter on my desk, addressed to you, Madam Speaker, asking for a debate on Remploy, because I believed that there would be strong interest in it on both sides of the House, and that is very evident today.
I am personally aware of the concerns in Barrow. A petition was presented to me when I was in Barrow last summer to carry out an opening ceremony for a new bungalow, at "The Croft", of which the hon. Member will be aware. The new bungalow was called "Peace" and I was delighted to be there. The Barrow and District Spastics and Handicapped Society does excellent work. I


am glad to say that my son is very happily settled there. He did come from Barrow originally, so it is fitting that he should be back there. I cannot speak too highly of the work done by Dennis Rose and the whole team at "The Croft", including his daughter, Jacqui Rose, who gives such personal care to the people there.
I know that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) visited Barrow a little while ago. I hope that he might have an opportunity to come to Barrow again and to visit "The Croft", as I am sure that he would be delighted to see the excellent work that is done there in view of his own interests in that sphere. Stephen is too physically and mentally handicapped to be able to take advantage of the sort of work that Remploy does, but I am very aware of the importance for Remploy, not only in Barrow but in my own constituency and elsewhere. Although the factory in Bolton is just outside my constituency, it employs many of my constituents. It is also in the textiles group and so shares the concerns that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness mentioned.
We also have a local authority workshop in Bolton, which carries out work for the Post Office. The Remploy factory in Bolton makes lots of trousers for the Post Office, so the Post Office is an important customer. The Bolmoor workshop has been successful in developing new products, especially the bags—they should also be useful for postmen—that it makes for newspaper groups and others. That workshop employs about 25 people at an average subsidy of £5,600 per head, which is much less than the cost of subsidising employment in Remploy.
I have been interested in the employment of the disabled for many years. When I first entered the House I was on the Employment Select Committee, and I was parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Employment from 1987 to 1990 and for two other Ministers in the Department of Employment until 1992. So I have long been aware of the concerns.
The problem is that the costs of subsidising employment at Remploy are so high compared with those elsewhere. The figure works out at almost £10,000 per employee; the cost of Remploy's subsidy is higher than its total wages bill, so in strict cash terms it would be cheaper for people to have the money and stay at home—although I appreciate the fact that Remploy carries out many other functions, and that it is important for people with disabilities to have the opportunity to be employed and to be integrated as closely as possible with society as a whole.
There are about 20,000 people in supported employment. Last night a reception was organised in the Palace of Westminster by the Shaw Trust, which has been remarkably successful in placing more than 2,000 people in employment throughout the country. It has existed for only about 10 years, and works with a subsidy of £4,420 per employee, through a Government grant of £8.5 million. So the Shaw Trust is more than twice as effective as Remploy in terms of the number of disabled people whom it can help for the same money. The total Government subsidy for such work is £153 million, of which about £94 million goes to Remploy. We must accept the fact whom resources are limited, and if we want to help as many disabled people as possible we must carefully examine the costs in Remploy.
Remploy has been given targets, but I believe that it has had difficulty in meeting them. It is nice for Remploy, like any other nationalised industry, to sit back and be comfortable with the taxpayer's support, rather than

facing the need to consider the picture more widely. One target was for the organisation to increase the number of disabled people employed from 8,600 to 8,900, at an average cost of £9,650. Another was to increase the number of people employed through the interwork scheme from 1,230 to 1,450. I am certainly not aware of a target of 5,000; I believe that that would mean looking a long way ahead.
The average cost of the interwork scheme is £4,420 per employee, and my figures suggest that the target is to increase employment in factories from 7,370 to 7,450. No figure is given for the cost of employment in those factories, so I should be grateful if when he replies the Minister would confirm my calculations, which suggest that each factory job costs £10,668. That figure is two and a half times the cost of the Shaw Trust's placements, so within a given budget five jobs could be organised through the Shaw Trust compared with two through Remploy in the factories. It is important that we know these figures, and that we think about what could be done.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said that there should be a rethink of Remploy's whole strategy. I agree, and I shall say more about that later. Remploy now has 95 factories in the United Kingdom, although if Alfreton closes there will be only 94.
As is obvious, the organisation is competing in an increasingly global marketplace. So many international businesses now make different products in different places that it is almost impossible to say exactly where anything is made. The other day there was a proposal for a new car factory to be built in south Wales by a conglomerate of Asian car manufacturers using Mercedes-Benz engines. I do not know what we should call the product that comes out of that factory. No doubt the Welsh would like to call it a Welsh car, the Germans will call it a German car and the Asians will call it an Asian car. It is now impossible to locate the manufacture of a product in a country as we once could.
One of the surprising facts about Remploy is that while the Government have been in office we have nationalised the eight private companies that have been brought into Remploy. I do not believe that that was the right strategy, and I should be surprised if we were to continue to nationalise private companies in Remploy, against the trend according to which the Government have privatised so many former nationalised industries, because those industries now run so much better as private sector companies.
I hope that the GMB will adopt a positive attitude towards the future options for Remploy factories. It is important that the factories should be in full use and employ people as fully as possible-not only the disabled but the abled, in as integrated a way as possible.
About 40 per cent. of Remploy's work is dependent on the Government, so it is obvious that the Government are involved not only as the provider of the subsidy but as a major customer. Remploy's failure to meet targets in the past has left the Government with the problem of what to do about that. The business is in a difficult position, with a £126 million turnover and a deficit of £83 million, which, as I have already said, exceeds the £79 million wage bill.
We already know about difficulties in the textiles division. In evidence to the Employment Select Committee's inquiry, it was named as the one of six divisions in which there were immediate problems. I


believe that when Ernie Bevin originally set up Remploy it was viewed as a staging post, but it is not easy to see how it can now perform that function; currently only 0.4 per cent. of employees move on to other employment. Of course, many employees have been with the organisation for years, and would not take easily to the idea of moving on.
We should consider the experience of other countries. Sweden, with the Samhall organisation, employs about 29,000 people; Australia has 11,700 in 282 separate workshops; and the United States has 250,000 disabled people in workshops. There is a strong message that those other countries are seeking alternatives to sheltered workshops, so I agreed with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness when he said that a new strategy was needed. After the Alfreton closure it will be possible to offer the workers alternative employment in the nearby Mansfield factory, but that would not necessarily happen with other factories, so we must consider the alternatives carefully.
We should start by discovering what the wishes of disabled people are. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to carry out an opinion survey among disabled jobseekers in general, as well as among employees of Remploy and other sheltered workshops, to find out exactly what they would like. We have heard some ideas from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness today, and many of his constituents are in the Strangers Gallery. They can give their views as existing employees, but we should also seek the opinions of as wide a range of people as possible.
For instance, the Shaw Trust has told me that its disabled employees welcome the fact that the way in which they work is integrated with the rest of society. Indeed, the trend is now for disabled people to be integrated as fully as possible into society and to avoid segregated ghettos, which may have been necessary in the 1940s but which no longer represent our vision of the best possibilities now.
We should find out the opinions of the placement, assessment and counselling teams—the PACTs—and the disability employment advisers, so that when we consider new strategies we know more exactly what disabled people need.
It has been suggested to me that Remploy could be transformed into an employee-owned trust. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), the Opposition spokesman on finance and City affairs, spoke at the launch of the new Employee Share Ownership Trust, so there is interest on both sides of the House in considering a possible different structure for Remploy as an employee-owned trust.
However Remploy is owned, I believe that the factories' future must depend on their entering into partnership agreements with private sector organisations that can help with the management. Interesting ideas have been suggested to me by the managing director of the Baxi partnership in Preston, Mr. Bryan Gray, and I have incorporated those thoughts into a paper. I gave a copy to the hon. Member for Monklands, West last night, and showed a copy to my hon. Friend the Minister, and I hope that he will consider the proposals in it.
It is essential that we look to the private sector to help find a solution to the future of Remploy. There is no doubt that the Government are committed to the interests of disabled people and to providing funds to help with

employment. A massive subsidy is going into Remploy, but that subsidy should go not just into bricks and mortar to keep open factories that may or may not be fully utilised, but to providing the best and widest opportunities for disabled people so that they can look forward to the future with some confidence.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I do not want to take up more time than I need, but I have read the hon. Gentleman's paper carefully and we shall consider it carefully. I hope that he will not think that I am misleading him, however, if I say that I did not expect his preamble. No one in the Tomlinson committee report accepted that this was just a matter of dealing with problems that arose from the war. Going back even to the American civil war, it was expected that one would deal with war veterans but, thereafter, with people who were still disabled.

Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. Obviously, we must consider the matter in the fullest and widest context and I am grateful for his undertaking to consider the proposals that I have put to him.
Forgive me, Madam Speaker, if I have taken more time than I had intended, but I should like to welcome today's fall in unemployment. The fall in Bolton, to a figure of 8,665, is welcome. We should not forget that, when the Labour party was in power, unemployment in Bolton trebled from 2,102 to 6,521. The figure is now coming down. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it now?"] The May figure is 8,665 and it is coming down at a rate that suggests to me that it will not be very long before it is below the figure when the Labour party was in power. The figures show that unemployment trebles when Labour party policies are in place. When this Government's policies are being implemented, however, we can look to a fall in unemployment, better employment opportunities for able-bodied people, and much better employment opportunities for disabled people, which I want to see occurring.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) had the good fortune to secure this debate and congratulate him most warmly on his opening speech. The debate is one I find moving as a parliamentary occasion that affects the hopes and very real fears of thousands of working people, a great many of them severely disabled working people. It is a debate of short duration and I shall speak only briefly, more especially since my support for Remploy's employees over more than 30 years here, both as a Minister and from these Benches, is well documented.
My purpose in speaking is simply to underline the importance of a clear ministerial response today to the questions Remploy's employees and their representatives are asking, often in anguish and sometimes now in anger, about the future of an enterprise that has transformed a huge number of disabled people from tax users into tax payers. They want a clear statement from the Government today that disabled people will not be exploited by interwork, to which my hon. Friend referred in his speech. They insist that the host company should pay at least the Remploy basic rate of £126 a week.
Remploy's disabled employees ask whether the cost of employing non-disabled administrative staff, which was £28 million in the last financial year, has got out of control. They point out that the current pay of the chief executive at £87,600 has increased from £74,000 in 1991 and that this represents four times the percentage increase of hourly-paid disabled employees in the same period. Does that have the Minister's approval?
Disabled employees see the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill as being likely to reduce sheltered employment. What guarantee can the Minister give this House today that there will be no reduction in sheltered employment in the UK? The Government's Bill proposes to abolish the register, but they have not said what they intend to put in its place. They promised to consult about a new system with employers, but not with disabled employees or their unions. Is that not totally unacceptable to both sides of the House and will the Minister now explain what is to be put in place of the green card system?
There is concern as well that the Government are not doing enough to try to alter European law and directives that deal with unfair competition and an insistence that sheltered employment should be exempted from their effect. Does the Minister agree that Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence should be allowed to place orders with British companies such as Remploy without interference?
In the Golden Jubilee issue of Remploy News, under the headline, "My Dream", an article by the chief executive said, quite amazingly, of Britain's political parties:
They all have the same policy towards disability".
That must really have startled the Secretary of State for Employment.
Remploy's chief executive also foresaw in his article
fewer Remploy factories and fewer people.
While there are Members of Parliament in all parties who work in close harmony to improve the well-being and enhance the status of disabled people, the chief executive's first statement is plainly wrong as he would discover by spending no more than a day or two here; and the second is deeply worrying to Remploy's employees, not least those who are severely disabled.
This debate provides the opportunity to clear the air about Remploy's future and I ask the Minister to play his part by providing straight answers to the questions I and others want answered before this debate concludes.
Finally, I want to pay well-justified tribute to Phil Davies, trade union side secretary, whose industry and concern have done so much to keep Members of Parliament abreast of developments at Remploy. His commitment and constancy in promoting the interests of its employees are highly valued by those whom Phil and his colleagues work so hard to help and what they have achieved is rightly and widely admired.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on instigating today's debate on this important company. I should like to congratulate it on its 50 years of achievement in helping to provide employment opportunities for some of the most severely disabled people in society.
It is easy to forget that the landmark legislation of 1944 was introduced against a background of war, when the country needed to maximise the potential, skills and contribution of all its people to defeat the enemy of Nazism.
When I was in the United States of America with the Select Committee on Employment to consider the Americans With Disabilities Act, one of the things that struck me was the loss of economic activity that resulted from disabled people being physically unable to attend work through lack of access or training, a point that was made repeatedly. The loss amounts to about £1 billion every year. In total, the American economy could lose as much as £100 billion a year from not maximising the skills and potential of disabled people.
We should consider this as an issue not only of social policy, but of Britain and the British economy. We should have the benefit of the talents and contributions of disabled people for our country to flourish economically. Although Remploy is often characterised as a company that provided disabled people with dignity and, in a sense, a land fit for heroes—many of the people who worked for Remploy immediately after the war were heroes—it is in the direct economic interests of our country.
Times have changed since the war and the revolution that has brought us new technology has helped the disabled in two ways. First, it enables those who, for purely physical reasons, were unable to work to do so with the help of modern aids. In America, that process is even more advanced than it is in Britain.
Secondly, the nature of the work that is now available for employees generally is such that people have to climb the ladder of technology. Physical work is, of itself, less important and disabled people can climb that ladder. In terms of technology, therefore, events are moving in favour of disabled people in the work force, and it is right that Remploy should direct itself in a way that meets, and works with, that tide.
When Remploy was first set up, its employees generally manufactured furniture. It is right that it should move on and look at other work—at the work of the future, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said—rather than at the work of the past. The Edinburgh factory has been doing exactly that. It started as a furniture manufacturer and moved into packaging, but for the past three years it has been a subcontractor in the electronics industry making quite a wide range of fairly sophisticated electronic products. That business is competing successfully, and in the past year alone the number of employees has gone up from 40 to 63.
I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) about the purchase of other businesses. Although my instincts are always in favour of private enterprise, if it is possible to purchase a business in an area of modern business endeavour and help disabled people to use their talents, I would not criticise such a move. Remploy was right to purchase the Silhouette lingerie line and to use that facility. It was right to undertake the making of life jackets, which is a fairly sophisticated process, and right to streamline the operating divisions.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe criticised Mr. Withey and the amount that he is paid, but Mr. Withey has done a good deal to make the business more efficient. The interwork scheme is working with the grain of


Remploy's original intentions. In a way, it was a staging post to enable people to move into placements in open employment. I am glad to see that that is expanding.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness spoke about the priority suppliers scheme. That scheme had to be abandoned by the Government because the European Commission made it clear that it was illegal. The Labour party is committed to European measures in every direction and says that it will always be at the centre of Europe and never stand up against it in any way, but it is saying that it would go ahead with an illegal scheme. We all know that it would not. The Government moved swiftly, in discussions with the Commission, to introduce a scheme that provides at least some of the protection that had previously been available.
The Select Committee on Employment looked at the issue. Page xv of its report states that the new arrangements enabled Remploy to win contracts, some of them large ones from the Ministry of Defence over the public procurement threshold, and that more were being considered. It would be wrong to say that the new scheme had been a failure. Certainly at this stage it looks as if there are some promising developments.
We must not forget that Remploy has to sell its products. There is increasing competition from suppliers of textiles and clothing sourced from low-wage economies in the far east. There is also a decline in work from the Ministry of Defence. No political party or hon. Member would say that the Ministry of Defence should order more than it needs so as to support Remploy. It is right that it should be a competitive business and become even more competitive. That is the chief executive's approach. He has said:
It has meant that we have to be very commercially minded. No one will pay us more or accept lower quality goods or late deliveries just because we are Remploy.
The modern structure and modern products and methods are the way forward.
I support the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East of a partnership with the private sector. There are two reasons for maintaining Remploy. One is the social reason—providing employment and opportunities for disabled people. The other concerns the importance to our economy of using people who have talents and skills and a contribution to make. We should not always concentrate on the social argument—it is important to Britain to get it right.

Mr. David Clelland: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on taking the opportunity to raise this important issue. I recently visited the Remploy factory in my constituency on the Team Valley trading estate where work is carried out with great skill and commitment. The workers there are concerned about the future of Remploy and especially about the future of the factory and their jobs. We have been able to reassure them about the next three years, but there is a question mark about the situation after that.
Remploy workers have become the victims of the Government's short-termism, as have many other people. The Remploy workers discussed with me two areas of

concern, both of which have been mentioned. The first is the special contracts arrangement. I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 859 which stands in my name and those of 82 of my hon. Friends. It draws attention to the shortcomings of the new arrangements that replaced the priority suppliers scheme. That replacement was one of the first acts of the Secretary of State for Employment, and although the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) drew attention to European rules, it seems to me and to the Remploy workers that the Government's enthusiasm for Europe waxes and wanes according to the issue of the day.
The Secretary of State seemed only too eager to adopt the European rules because of the effect that they would have on the disabled, which is detrimental. It is somewhat ironic that one of the first Remploy factories to suffer after the Secretary of State took up his appointment was the one in Alfreton in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), who is to reply to the debate. I wrote to him offering my support for the efforts that I knew he would want to make to ensure that the factory did not close. I got a polite reply, or at least one that was as polite as the hon. Gentleman can be on such occasions, turning down my offer of support, and the factory closed. Perhaps there is a lesson there for the Under-Secretary.
It has been said that the workers can be redeployed to another factory in Mansfield, which is nine miles away. I suppose that is welcome, but it is not necessarily an easy option for disabled people, particularly for those who wish to maintain some independence and make their own travel arrangements. Nine miles can be a long way and the Under-Secretary should have taken more note of that when dealing with the factory in his constituency.
The second issue that the Remploy employees in my constituency raised is the interwork scheme. There is some concern about exploitation—that workers are being given menial tasks under the scheme to the benefit of employers. The Under-Secretary should have looked at that. If he has, I hope that he will give us the results of his inquiries; if he has not, I hope that he will do so because we do not want disabled people being exploited and being unable to use their undoubted skills to their full capacity. I look forward to receiving such assurances from the Minister.

Mr. Peter Hain: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on securing this debate. It will be welcomed in Wales and especially in south Wales which has a higher proportion of disabled workers than anywhere else in Britain. I am proud to be a member of the GMB union. I speak on behalf of several hundred of my constituents who are employed in the Remploy factories in Neath, Ystradgynlais and Brynamman. Those people are highly skilled and proud of their work. Because my communities have a tradition of coal mining and heavy industry, the people there suffer a high ratio of disability. As a result, the Remploy factories are crucial local employers.
I wish to correct the myth, perpetrated to some extent by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), that the Government are being charitable in supporting Remploy through a £94.2 million subsidy. If the Remploy workers who enjoy that subsidy were on the


dole, it would cost the Exchequer more than £81 million, so it is not a generous charitable subsidy: the difference between the two figures is only about £13 million. It is important to put that into perspective, especially as the Government have been successively undermining the position of disabled workers employed by Remploy.
Hon. Members have referred to the special contracts arrangement scheme which has replaced the priority suppliers scheme. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) said that that was inevitable and that the Government had to do it, but the picture is not quite as he paints it. The Secretary of State for Employment responded with remarkable alacrity to the European directive, even though he champions himself as a bulldog figure. On that occasion, he behaved more like a poodle. He did not seriously challenge the European Commission and negotiate a sensible response to its directive: he simply accepted it. It is interesting that when it comes to unfettered market forces and commercial interests, the Secretary of State for Employment—the great Euro-sceptic—simply rolls over in front of the European Commission and lies down. We ought to note that.
The change in policy has contributed to a severe reduction in orders from the Ministry of Defence. The work that Remploy performs for the Ministry of Defence is worth about £10 million, a decline from £17.5 million. That severe drop is affecting Remploy extremely seriously and bearing down on the earnings of very low-paid workers. Average earnings at Remploy are £150.83 for a 37.5-hour week. That is barely £4 an hour, on which it is almost impossible to subsist.

Mr. Heald: When there are fewer soldiers, fewer uniforms are required. How would the hon. Gentleman deal with that situation?

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is surely not suggesting that orders to Remploy have fallen by 50 per cent. because the Ministry of Defence budget has almost halved or that the number of soldiers has halved. I am sure that he would not pretend that that is the case. Remploy has been directly affected by a punitive change in policy forced on it by the Government.
There is a very strong feeling among Remploy workers in my constituency that the company, under pressure from the Government, has lost its way. Many feel extremely bitter. I was pleased to attend the recent celebration of the Neath Remploy factory's 50th anniversary. The local manager is widely respected, but there is a feeling elsewhere in the company that its whole nature is being transformed and that senior managers are behaving rather like senior managers elsewhere in industry—taking a lot of the loot and behaving like yuppie managers instead of responsible managers supporting a crucial and distinct local industry. In short, the nature of Remploy is changing under direct pressure from the Government.
One example of such change, to which my hon. Friends have referred, is the interwork scheme. The recruitment policy has completely changed. Under instruction from the Employment Service, the company has stopped all recruitment of disabled people to Remploy factories and introduced a scheme called interwork, which is agency based and through which an employee with a disability is given work outside Remploy.
Most of the 1,700 disabled employees on interwork are paid at below Remploy rates of pay and I understand that most people stay on the interwork scheme for an average

of only six months. Little or no training is given, most workers are denied the basic right to join a trade union and many are not aware of the Remploy wage agreement, which was signed by the trade unions and the company and was supposed to protect everyone on interwork by maintaining conditions. But the company has not honoured that agreement and more recently—I understand—has completely departed from it.

Mr. Jim Cousins: I declare an interest in that my trade union, the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union, recruits the managers of Remploy. In their defence, will my hon. Friend recognise the courage of some of Remploy's senior managers in striking a very firm position in front of the Employment Select Committee in favour of a levy grant scheme, which would benefit good employers and penalise bad employers through the imposition of a levy and would enable Remploy to be free of Government control? In striking such a position, the managers of Remploy have spoken not only for themselves and the company, but for all disabled people.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a fair point and I am grateful for his correction. I was talking more about senior managers. Many of the local managers, especially those with whom I deal in my constituency, have an honourable record, alongside their workers, in defending the interests and tradition of Remploy. Largely as a result of interwork and other pressures, the standard of living of people with disabilities is declining. The average pay of interwork employees is very low—in some cases about £100 for a 37.5-hour week, which is even lower than the basic Remploy pay of £126 per week.
Instead of giving disabled people in Remploy the dignity of work, I charge the Government with pushing them down the road of exploitation. A total change of policy at Government level is needed to remedy the situation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: First, on the priority suppliers scheme and in view of what was said earlier, I should put it on record that some of us Opposition Members—I know that there are also some on the Conservative Benches—take the view that directives from the Common Market should be totally ignored.
I am staggered at the Secretary of State for Employment, who is supposed to have some anti-market tinge—I am not sure about it as he voted for the single European market on a guillotine along with Lady Thatcher and all the rest—and who tries to create the image that somehow all that comes out of the Common Market is had. Despite that image, he seemed to be tumbling over himself to get the directive affecting Remploy through.
Let me make it plain that when we get the next Labour Government, very shortly, some of us will be standing up against the Common Market just as fiercely as I have done over many years. If the Common Market affects disabled workers such as those at Remploy, my efforts will be redoubled. I want to place that on the record now so that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench can understand exactly the intentions of some of us. We are fed up to the back teeth with bureaucrats in the Common Market and others who profess to be parliamentarians and politicians telling us what to do.
This debate has shown us precisely what can happen under the treaty of Rome: free movement of capital and labour. I emphasise that fact for my hon. Friends. That is what the Rome treaty is all about. We shall get more such directives, freeing up the market, and so on. If we are to defend and support workers like the 9,000 to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) referred under a future Labour Government, we have to subsidise them. It is impossible in this day and age to run Remploy factories for disabled people on the basis that somehow they will be able to compete with the Pacific rim and other slave labour economies. Some people on the Tory Front Bench would love that situation—that is why they are going down that road—but that is not a job for people here. It is not a job for socialists, as some us still proudly call ourselves. The strong helping the weak is what Remploy is all about. It is about people who have been crippled in all kinds of ways needing help from the strong.
What is wrong with subsidies anyway? Not one Member of Parliament would he in this Chamber this morning, or trotting around outside, if we were not subsidised by the taxpayer—and not at £10,000 per annum as the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) suggested, but at £33,000 apiece. So let us get things into proper perspective. Plenty of people in Britain get subsidies. What about farmers? Every family in Britain pays £28 a week to subsidise farmers under the common agricultural policy. Are we saying that we could get rid of all that subsidy, when we import about 60 per cent. of our food? That is mainly, but not entirely, the reason why the subsidies are paid. Are we going to say that we are not going to allow them to provide that food? That is a nonsense.
The defence industry is subsidised to the tune of God knows how many billions of pounds every year. Nissan came to Britain with a £300 million subsidy to set up a factory in the north-east.

Mr. Cousins: Not true.

Mr. Skinner: The truth is that Nissan had a £300 million donation from the British taxpayer when it set up its factory in the north-east to provide non-union labour, which is what most of it is.
Subsidies extend far and wide. Employers who pay poverty-stricken workers £2 an hour or less while the families get family credit are being subsidised to the tune of £2.4 billion per annum to provide that slave labour. The list is endless. What about Lloyd's? The fact that Lloyd's names have been subsidised to the tune of £2.8 billion in tax relief has just come out into the open. That is an extremely significant sum compared with the amount going to disabled people in Remploy factories. The top four clearing banks have had a £5 billion subsidy in writing off tax against their so-called irrecoverable debts.
That is why I took part in a campaign to try to save the Alfreton factory from closure. I raised the matter on the Floor of the House on 5 April and asked the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who represents the constituency involved and is a Minister in the appropriate Department, to intervene. We had a massive rally at Alfreton. It was one of the proudest days of my life. People carne from all parts of the country, including

the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, from Northern Ireland and from all parts of Britain, in the pouring rain. Apart from all the others, 400 or 500 people in wheelchairs took part in a march through Alfreton to save a factory which employed 74 people—who were to be shunted to other jobs in other factories, if they could move.
It is a sad day when people can talk about subsidies for disabled people, giving the impression that we live in a world in which one can provide work for such people without subsidies. We should be proud of the fact that we are helping to keep people in employment at a time when medical science has ensured that the disabled live longer. If we had been debating the subject 50 years go, many of them would not have been able to work in a factory. Because of the national health service, they are now able to go to work and we should be proud that many of them do.
We should be doubling the number of Remploy and similar factories, instead of closing them as the factory at Alfreton was closed. Notwithstanding the Government's position on market forces, the Minister, on their behalf, should understand that if we are to help disabled people to have some dignity and to go to work, we should not only be ensuring their employment but doubling their wages as well.

Mr. Jim Cousins: It has always been my political misfortune to be the straight man in the double act, but I never anticipated that I would have to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I must inform him, the Minister and the House that, if we had a proper scheme for funding these facilities, schemes and resources, the word subsidy—both as my hon. Friend and as the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) used it—need never be used again.
If we had a levy grant scheme, which is what the managers of Remploy have been trying to persuade the Government and the Select Committee on Employment to accept and which would deal honourably and fairly with people with disabilities and good employers in all sectors of British enterprise who deal fairly with people with disabilities, it could be financed by a levy on those employers across the spectrum of British enterprise who do not deal fairly and sensibly with such people. For many years, it has been Remploy's desire to escape the iron hand of Ministers and to put itself and organisations such as the Shaw Trust on a proper basis—one in which they would not be dependent on Government grants and handouts and flows of money that could be represented as subsidies.
If we had such a self-financing scheme, such orgsanisations would be free of all that and could build more facilities, employ more people, supervise the interwork scheme and make it meaningful, and operate their own variations of the priority suppliers scheme. They would not be dependent on Government handouts.
If we had such a scheme, what a signal it would give to good employers in all sectors, who would be set a target that they could meet and could, individually, do right by people with disabilities. Employers who did not meet the targets would be penalised through a levy, which would work automatically, free of Government, and would provide the resources to promote further employment for people with disabilities. That is the way forward, not


through increasing subsidies or the argument about what one would call a subsidy, but through a fair system that would work automatically, independent of Government and would produce the resources to keep Remploy in business, enable it to acquire more businesses and expand its enterprises, and help organisations like the Shaw Trust to be free for ever from all this talk of subsidy. Such talk is so wrong in the context of people who want to be in the world of work and to be there honourably.
That is the way forward and I hope that the Minister will give us a clear signal this morning that that is the way in which the Government will go. Let us shift the argument away from subsidy to a levy grant scheme that will be fair to all enterprises and employers and will place the economics of Remploy on a sound basis.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am very glad that this interesting debate has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). From my recent visit—to which the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) referred—I know that my hon. Friend is held in the highest regard, not least because of his commitment to these important matters.
The future of Remploy is of great importance to hon. Members from both sides of the House who have Remploy factories within their constituencies. Such factories are based in one in seven of all constituencies in the country. I welcome the speeches by all my hon. Friends, but particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He spoke—if I may say so—very much like my father, who died at the fairly young age of 53 from pneumoconiosis. My father was employed in the mining industry and, if circumstances had been different at the time, he may well have made a contribution to Remploy.
The numbers of people involved in Remploy are relatively small, but they are not insignificant. More than 8,000 people with varying degrees of disability are employed by Remploy. Tony Withey, the company's chief executive—who is following our proceedings—talked of increasing that figure to about 15,000. Such an increase would be most welcome, with the important proviso that the quantity of employment should not be at the expense of the quality of training and work experience.
Many of those who work in Remploy factories have severe disabilities. Many know that they would have great difficulty in finding employment in the open market. That fact will not be changed by the legislation that is currently being considered in another place, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) reminded us. For many more, Remploy can provide a halfway house and a means of obtaining the necessary training, work experience and self-esteem—that is very important—to enable them to go out into the job marketplace to earn a living on the basis of their skills alone. We welcome the fact that Remploy is talking of adding to that side of its work, and I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to that.
We recognise that the best thing which supported employment can do for many disabled people is to equip them with the skills to allow them to work in unsupported employment. In that context, the expansion of the

interwork initiative and placement by Remploy with other companies is a positive gain which should not be seen as anything else. But we would not welcome—we would resolutely oppose—any idea that an increase in out-placements for disabled Remploy workers should be substituted for the provision of supported employment in-house. That is why we are most unhappy with the idea of the Employment Service setting targets for reductions in the size of Remploy's factory work force.
By all means, increase the number of Remploy workers who are placed with firms. But do so only on the ground that that particular worker has achieved the levels of competence and confidence to allow him or her to do so on a par with other workers. We must certainly encourage disabled workers to take up opportunities to work elsewhere, but we must make sure that his or her job is filled in the Remploy factory by another disabled person, who is thereby freed from dependence on state benefits and gains the dignity of labour and a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
We should help to match the needs of good employers with the abilities of those who are able to do the job, but we must make sure above all that the pay and conditions which that person receives in open employment are in no way inferior to the standards set by Remploy itself. We must never forget that the excellent quality of the work produced is welcomed by many consumers, and I believe that it should be welcomed by the House.
The chief executive of Remploy has spoken of the factories as
halfway houses to jobs in other companies".
For many people, that will be the right course. For others, it may not be. But a Remploy factory is a halfway house only if it recruits and trains disabled workers. It is hard to see how the idea of a halfway house is compatible with recruiting direct from the register.
A halfway house is different from a placement agency, which seems to have been advocated by some Conservative Members. The reduction of Remploy to merely agency status would be an entirely different matter. As my hon. Friends have said, needless difficulties have been quite deliberately thrown in the way of Remploy in winning Government contracts. That has been done, we have been told most unconvincingly, with the support of the European Union.
We have seen the closure of a Remploy factory this year, and we do not want to see any more closures. Why should we? The majority of the factories were opened during the term of the first majority Labour Government between 1945 and 1951. But in spite of that, we do not claim exclusive credit for the provision of manufacturing jobs for severely disabled people. Ministers should remember that the Conservative party also had a role. Winston Churchill was Prime Minister when the principle of supported employment backed by public funds was first established under the terms of the Tomlinson report of 1943. That report was a landmark, not just because it laid the foundations for Remploy but because it was the first official recognition that the whole community had an interest in, and a responsibility for, the full participation of disabled people in society.
It would be a great pity if the Government were to desert the principle of supported employment in the same year as they have recognised for the first time that discrimination against disabled people is a problem which


requires tackling. It is now more than six months since Ministers said at the Dispatch Box that they would consult those involved in supported employment about what should happen.
It is more than six months since the Disability Discrimination Bill was published. Ministers have made public their intention to provide funding to profit-making private employers directly, rather than through Remploy itself. Yet I have been reliably informed that, as of Monday this week, no discussions have been held between Ministers and senior managers of Remploy on either of the main issues. Neither have discussions taken place with the trade unions. That seems to me to be both surprising and completely unacceptable.
We need to know, and Remploy needs to know, just what the Minister's intentions are. Why do Ministers see the need to provide funding directly to private companies—a perfectly reasonable question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)? Is the interwork initiative which Remploy has undertaken not sufficient? What purpose is served by dividing and diverting resources away from the one agency with a proven track record in enabling disabled people to take up work in-house or elsewhere?
We also need to know what the Government intend to do about the green card system. That too has worked well in the field of supported employment, if not in the wider field of achieving the 3 per cent. target quota for disabled people in all jobs in the employment market. The scheme should not be abolished by the passage of the current legislation before the process of consultation on what is to take its place has even begun.
Opposition Members consider that now is the time for Ministers to indicate their intentions as to the future of Remploy. We want an assurance about the short-term future of the existing Remploy staff, and about current levels of funding. But such assurances are not enough. We also want assurances about the long-term future of factory jobs in Remploy, and we are entitled to know about that.
The next generation of severely disabled people should enjoy the same opportunities to work as their predecessors have had for the past 50 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness has done the House and those employed in Remploy a great service by drawing these important matters to our attention at this vital time and I trust that the Minister's response will be just as positive.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate, which has ranged over a number of interesting and important areas. I shall do my best to respond to the points that have been made in the short time that remains.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) that the Government have a special and important responsibility in this area. I shall return later to some of the specific comments made by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness. I also welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who speaks with a special knowledge and sensitivity on this subject. He has just written a helpful and challenging paper on the issue.
It is clear that, to continue to provide meaningful and worthwhile work, Remploy cannot afford to stand still as a business. Like any other business, it must evolve and adapt if it is to keep pace with the needs of its customers. It is to Remploy's credit that it has maintained and increased its customer base over the past 50 years. The Remploy of today is known for quality and attention to detail, not just in its products and services but in its processes and work practices. Remploy wins awards and customers because it is alive to the needs of the market as well as to the needs of its work force. This is why, when one walks down most high streets today, one finds Remploy products on the shelves of all the most reputable shops.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness and others argued that Remploy has run into difficulties because of the withdrawal of the priority supply scheme. That is not so. The main problem facing Remploy is caused by companies that decide to subcontract some of their work to low-cost countries outside the EC. I wish to make it crystal clear that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said, the priority supply scheme had to be withdrawn because it was incompatible with EC law. That conclusion was not only confirmed by the European Commission but was based on a judgment by the European Court.
We moved rapidly to replace the scheme with a special contracts arrangement, which will give welcome help to Remploy and other supported employment providers. I understand that Remploy has already won extra business on the strength of that arrangement. I also wish to make it clear that the withdrawal of the scheme has not had, and will not have, any effect on the Government's continuing commitment to fund supported employment through a variety of grants.
It is easy for Opposition Members to say that we should have negotiated better terms. That is a good cop-out. But because of the European Court's judgment, the scheme was illegal. If the Opposition spokesman is saying that, despite it being illegal, a Labour Government would ignore the European Court's ruling, he should put that clearly on the record. I should be amazed if the Leader of the Opposition, that well-known Johnny-come-lately, that new-found singing and dancing Euro-fanatic, would break European law.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister says that the scheme was illegal. Who advised the Government that it was illegal, and why did not other European Governments take the same view?

Mr. Oppenheim: Both Government lawyers and the European Commission advised us that it was illegal. I have no information that other European countries have not had to take the same action. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman thinks otherwise, perhaps he would supply evidence. If he now says that it would be Labour policy to break European Court of Justice rulings, I should be interested to know. It is absolutely clear that there are divisions in the Labour party on that issue.
I enjoyed the eloquent attack by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on the attitude not only of his current leader but of his former leader, who is now a European Commissioner. It is nice to see that divisions on this issue are fairly widespread and not confined to the Conservative party.
I was less keen on the comments by the hon. Member for Bolsover about Alfreton. He spoke to me at length on this issue in a helpful way before the closure, but may I try to set the matter straight? As the Alfreton factory was in my constituency, I made it my business to look into the merger in great detail. I sought and received personal assurances from Remploy management about a variety of issues, including the new travel arrangements, and in April I met a number of those affected with their union representatives. Not a single disabled employee from Alfreton was made redundant as a result of the merger. Moreover, I am confident that Remploy dealt sympathetically with all the employees affected. Every disabled employee was offered the chance of relocation to a factory that was fairly nearby and, where appropriate, help with transport arrangements and costs.
All those affected were offered counselling to discuss the options and any individual problems that arose. They were also given a trial period of 13 weeks to help them decide whether they wanted to move, and a generous relocation package. That package included additional travel costs to be paid by the company; maintenance of all previous job grades for at least six months; bonuses to be paid at the employee's average for the first three months; and an ex-gratia disturbance allowance of £450.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Oppenheim: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have limited time and must deal with a number of other issues.
May I say to the hon. Member for Bolsover and others that people in Amber Valley are not slow to lift their pens and write to me about issues that concern them. I receive a huge volume of correspondence but I did not receive a single letter from constituents before the factory closure, and I received only one letter from someone who was at the union meeting that I attended. The hon. Gentleman's description of a mass rally in protest of Alfreton's closure does not comply with newspaper reports—[Interruption.] All right, the reporters were wrong and the hon. Member for Bolsover got it right.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Oppenheim: I shall move on to other important issues.
May I say to Opposition Members and Remploy employees that if we are to guarantee the continuance of Remploy and jobs for Remploy employees, we must ensure that Remploy is competitive. There may well be occasions when Remploy management takes the view—it is best placed to know—that factories must merge. If the Opposition say that they would give a clear commitment that a future Labour Government, if there is one, would not allow Remploy to merge factories, they should make

that commitment here and now. It is clear that the Opposition spokesman is not prepared to make that commitment and that the Opposition will not commit themselves to preventing Remploy from merging factories.
If and when Remploy merges its factories, as it did at Alfreton, the House—the Government and we as constituency Members of Parliament—must ensure that the terms and conditions of employees who move to merged factories are dealt with sensitively, that they are treated properly and that their needs are taken care of. I am confident that that is what happened in the case of Alfreton.
May I reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on the green card? All groups with an interest in supported employment, including Remploy, are to be consulted on the new criteria for determining entry to the supported employment programme. A consultative document will be issued shortly but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have no plans to change the broad criteria or scale of the programme.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly raised the general commitment to Remploy and sheltered employment. May I make it clear to him that our commitment is solid and wholehearted? Remploy is an integral part of supported employment provision in the United Kingdom. It receives a substantial amount of Government funding each year. The supported employment programme, of which Remploy is just one part, is designed to supply work for severely disabled people who have little chance of getting or retaining work in open employment.
In total, 22,000 people were helped by the programme last year, at a cost of £150 million. That included 8,900 severely disabled people in Remploy, at a cost of £92 million. The average Government subsidy per Remploy worker was £10,212 for the financial year just ended. That represents £11,395 for each Remploy factory worker, and £4,320 for every disabled person on the interwork scheme.
Overall, the numbers of people in Remploy have increased since 1979 and have increased in the past four years. That is a measure of our firm commitment to Remploy, which will be a continuing commitment.
In responding to the arguments expressed this morning, I fully recognise the concern and sincerity of every hon. Member on both sides of the House who has contributed to the debate. Remploy has had a long and honourable history since its establishment in 1944. It is a highly worthwhile organisation, which rightly arouses great feelings of warmth and affection. However, it would be wrong if we allowed that affection to get in the way of Remploy's need to be dynamic as a business. Remploy—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must move to the next topic, which is Cyprus.

Cyprus

Mr. John Marshall: Anyone who visits Cyprus is affected in two quite different ways—first by the beauty of that delightful island, and secondly by the tragedy of its continued division. It is because of that that I make no apology for initiating yet another debate on Cyprus.
Obviously, there will be a certain repetition in the speeches in the debate, simply because the issues have not changed. The fundamental injustices remain. When I first visited Cyprus, soon after the events of 1974, there was initially a spirit of optimism that the late President Makarios might secure a settlement. However, despite frequent attempts by the United Nations to broker a settlement, nothing has changed fundamentally since then.
In August, we shall celebrate the 50th anniversary of VJ day, the coming of peace and the end of the last war. That historic day will be a day of great meaning for the President of Cyprus, who took part in that war as an airman on the allied side. We are also about to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the formation of the United Nations, which was meant to usher in a better world.
However, later this year, there will be another anniversary—the 21st anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus by the Turks in 1974. That is no cause for celebration. It is no coming of age. All the Cypriots will be doing is seeking the key to the door—the key to the door of the Turkish Cypriots, who have caused the island to remain divided for 21 years. Instead of a divided island, the Cypriots want a united island. Instead of an army of occupation, they want the restoration of democracy throughout the island. Instead of their homes being full of settlers from Turkey, the refugees want to be free to return to them.
The relatives of the missing persons want to know what has happened to their loved ones in the past 21 years. After such a delay, it is natural that they should dread the worst, but hope springs eternal in the human breast and they continue to hope for the best. They want at least an end to the uncertainty. If they are still alive, the missing persons will have changed dramatically. Children have become adults, middle-aged people have become pensioners and the young may well have become middle-aged grandparents without the joy of knowing their grandchildren.
The uncertainty about the fate of the missing persons demonstrates the inhuman legacy of 1974. Children have been denied the knowledge of what has happened to their parents and wives the knowledge of what has happened to their husbands. It is a tribute to the loyalty of the Cypriots that they have remained loyal to the memories of their loved ones and have not, in spite of a gap of 21 years, sought to remarry and set up new relationships.
I remember seeing the green line for the first time in the 1970s. I remember going back to the green line about two years ago with my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess)—he does move outside Essex sometimes, Madam Deputy Speaker—and for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who this morning has to adopt the Trappist vows of the Whips Office, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who is a staunch supporter of Cyprus.
When one visits the green line, one can see the shops on the Turkish side. They were once thriving businesses. One sees the shops empty, and the signs of a sudden withdrawal. I shall always remember looking at a tailor's shop in which cloth remained on display in the window because the tailor had assumed, when he left, that he would be able to return in a matter of months, if not weeks.
I remember talking to someone in 1979, who said that, when he left his home in the north, his father made a special effort to take the title deeds with him because he hoped to be able to return shortly. Twenty-one years later, the title deeds have become greyer, the print on them has become lighter, but there is no possibility today of their returning to that home tomorrow.
When I was in Cyprus with my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford and for Basildon, I spoke to the mayor in exile from Famagusta. We went to Famagusta, and from its borders we could see people pointing out, but unable to go and live in, the homes that had been their family houses for generations. They knew that those houses were now occupied by settlers from Turkey rather than by their family.
One thinks of the hotel keepers of Varosha, whose hotels were bombed in 1974. Until then, Varosha had been a mecca for Mediterranean tourists. Today, it plays host to rats and stray dogs. Those half-destroyed hotels are a monument to the indifference of the world to the fate of Cyprus. One thinks of the orange groves of Cyprus, tended by generations of Greek Cypriots, which are now tended by Turkish settlers.
It is surely unacceptable that about 100,000 people should be forcibly removed from their homes and made to go and live somewhere else.
We must also consider the plight of the small Greek Cypriot enclave in northern Cyprus. Those Greek Cypriots feel cut off from the rest of the world, difficult as it is for visitors to go and see them and impossible as it is for them to go to other parts of Cyprus.
In the state of separatism that has existed since 1974, the northern Cyprus economy has stagnated. Tourism has suffered and real incomes are low whereas, in the southern part of the island, there has been a substantial increase in real incomes.
There is a significant danger that, after 21 years, there may be an institutionalisation of the division of the island. Historically, Turkish and Greek Cypriots lived together in the same villages. They had different religions and different languages, but they lived in the same village and played football, worked and socialised together. However, for a whole generation now, Greek Cypriot has not met Turkish Cypriot and vice versa.
Let us consider what is happening in Cyprus. It becomes much more difficult for the people concerned to regard themselves as Cypriots when they live in northern Cyprus and may well not have seen a Greek Cypriot for a long time.
I am sure that everyone in the House finds the division of the island unacceptable. One can never accept that a family should be forced for ever and a day not to live in what has been their family home. I am sure that everyone would want the resolutions of the United Nations about Cyprus to be honoured by both parties in that country.
Another issue that concerns the House is Cyprus's relations with the European Union, with which Cyprus has sought a closer relationship for a long time. In 1979,


when I was merely a candidate for the European Parliament, I met a representative of the Government of Cyprus in Charlie's bar in Nicosia, where we enjoyed the most excellent mezze. He said that he wanted the association agreement between Cyprus and the European Community to be accepted. Cyprus saw that agreement as a stepping stone to a much closer relationship with the European Union.
Cyprus fulfils all of the criteria for admission to the European Union: it is a democracy and it has a successful economy. Cyprus's growth rate in the past decade has been twice that of most countries in the European Union. Its gross domestic product per capita is higher than that of Greece and of Portugal and it conducts more than half its trade with European Union countries. It is a European country because Cyprus is part of the cradle of European civilisation.
That is why I am pleased that the European Union has agreed in principle to consider Cyprus's application as soon as the intergovernmental conference has ended. I regret the fact that consideration of Cyprus's application has been linked to the conclusion of the intergovernmental conference, especially in view of the rumour circulating last week that Chancellor Kohl wants to postpone the conference by a year so that it does not take place before the next British general election. If that were to happen, one would hope that Cyprus's application could be squeezed in some time in 1996 rather than delayed until 1998 or 1999.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm this morning that the division of the island can never be used as an excuse to delay Cyprus's application to join the European Union. To do so would present to the minority on the island the right of veto over the majority view. Only one Government in Cyprus is recognised by the European Union and we must negotiate with, and talk to, that Government. It would be quite wrong for a regime that is not recognised by the European Union to have the right of veto over the actions of the Government of Cyprus.
As to Turkey's application to join the European Union, I expect the Union to adhere to the policy of Her Majesty's Government and not to consider that application until there is a solution to the Cyprus problem. Obviously, if Turkey, Cyprus and Greece were members of the European Union, that might solve many of the political problems in that part of the world. However, I do not think that Turkey can be a member of the European Union while the Cypriot problem remains unresolved.
I said in this place on a previous occasion that peace in the middle east will be achieved by a series of building blocks. We have seen that in the relationship between Israel and her neighbours. Camp David was followed by agreements between Prime Minister Rabin and Mr. Arafat which have led to self-rule in Gaza and Jericho and which may have further benefits. That is why confidence-building measures between the two communities in Cyprus are essential in order to bring about a final solution to the problems.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the confidence-building measures should be implemented without any conditions?

Mr. Marshall: I think that it would he going too far to say that the measures should he implemented without any conditions. I am reminded of the occasion when a prayer for peace in Northern Ireland was said in St. Margaret's

church in Westminster. The former Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, was a member of the congregation and when the vicar said, "We pray for peace in Northern Ireland," Mr. Powell asked, "But on what terms?" It would be quite wrong to expect the Greek Cypriots to agree to confidence-building measures while the island remained divided.

Mr. Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again on that very important point. If he disputes the qualification "without any conditions", does he agree with the alternative view—as expressed by Mr. Denktash, the head of the Turkish Cypriot community—that both sides of the argument should accept the confidence-building measures on the bases proposed and recommended by the United Nations?

Mr. Marshall: There is a lot of evidence that Mr. Denktash is dragging his feet on the matter. We hoped that a series of meetings would take place when representatives of the two communities visited London recently. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—whom I used to call an hon. Friend in another Parliament—will know that only one meeting took place in London and that the Turkish Cypriots did not give any sign that they wished to talk with the Greek Cypriots. The initiative in those meetings lay with President Clerides, who agreed to them. It then transpired that the Turkish Cypriots had no desire to reach any resolution.
Confidence-building measures in Varosha and Nicosia would benefit both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Today, Varosha is a mausoleum. It was once home to some of the finest hotels in Europe, but today it is a resting place for dead rats, mice, cats and dogs, and offers employment to no one. If the hotels in Varosha could be rebuilt, tourism in northern Cyprus would flourish and employment opportunities could be developed to the benefit of both communities, as the United Nations has pointed out.
The reopening of Nicosia international airport would benefit the Turkish community. At present, Turkish Cypriots do not have direct international flights, other than those to and from Turkey. If Nicosia international airport were reopened, tourism would benefit, exports would increase and real incomes would rise. It would also remove the feeling of isolation from which the Turkish Cypriots must suffer. The failure of the confidence-building measures suggests that there is a spirit of bloody-mindedness—

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my hon. Friend recall the comment attributed to Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali that talks had failed because of a lack of political will on the Turkish Cypriot side?

Mr. Marshall: I think that I have said broadly the same thing—although with none of the eloquence of the representative of the United Nations and of my hon. Friend. I believe that the Greek Cypriots have demonstrated a desire to reach a settlement—President Clerides certainly did so by agreeing to talks in London.
What can we do to try to resolve the situation? The military option was ignored in 1974 when British troops were stationed on the island and Turkish forces might have been prevented from landing. Having abandoned that option in 1974, we must now adopt a carrot-and-stick approach. I believe that the confidence-building measures will be the incentives for the Turkish Cypriots.
On the negative side of the equation, we must make it clear that the British Government will never recognise the Denktash regime, that we will not trade with northern Cyprus and that we will welcome Cyprus into the European Union. Of course, that is only part of the solution. I believe that it is high time, nearly 21 years after the events of 1974, for an international conference on Cyprus. I would also like to think that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary might visit Cyprus in the not too distant future. President Eisenhower won the 1952 presidential election with the promise:
I shall go to Korea.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say that if he will not go to Cyprus, at least the Foreign Secretary might do so.

Mr. Tom Cox: As always, I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on again giving the House the opportunity to discuss Cyprus. I believe that there is no Parliament in the world, outside Cyprus, that discusses the issue more than we do.
As the hon. Gentleman said, next month Cypriots and their friends in Cyprus, in the United Kingdom and, indeed, throughout the world, and their friends, will be remembering those dark, brutal days when Cyprus was invaded by the Turkish army in 1974. I and many other people believe that there has been so little progress after nearly 21 years because of the lack of decisive action by British Governments, whether Conservative or Labour. I hope that this debate will give both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) the opportunity to tell us how they see the issue.
I shall follow up many of the points made by the hon. Member for Hendon, South. No one can say that enormous efforts have not been made over the years to try to get an honourable settlement. Sadly, they have always collapsed and there is no doubt whatsoever why. No matter who has been involved in intercommunal talks or confidence-building measures, they have always come to the same conclusion: the problem is the attitude of Mr. Denktash and his friends and supporters in Turkey.
There can be no greater indictment of Denktash than that made last July by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who said that the lack of progress in the talks that he had been requested to make on behalf of the Security Council was due entirely to the actions of Mr. Denktash.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: rose—

Mr. Cox: No, I shall not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I am not frightened to give way, but many hon. Members wish to speak. I shall not give way because of the time.
What saddens me and many other hon. Members, as the hon. Member for Hendon, South rightly said, is that it is the Turkish Cypriots who suffer most. One sees ample evidence of that and the Minister must know it. We know that there are contacts between Government officials and people in northern Cyprus. We know the conditions in the

economy—the lack of investment, the enormous unemployment, the extremely high rate of inflation and the decline of the tourist industry.
Against that background, I believe that Mr. Denktash has, like many of the old leaders of the former communist eastern European countries, closed his eyes and ears to the devastation that he is causing in the country to which he claims to be so committed. That is why this debate is so important. The issue of Cyprus is in a new phase now that an application has been made by the Republic of Cyprus to join the European Union.
I hope to hear this morning a firm commitment from the Government and the Opposition that Britain supports that application and totally rejects the statement of the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mrs. Ciller, in the United States earlier this year that the solution to the Cyprus problem will be found only when Turkey is admitted to the European Union. We must make it loud and clear to her and to her Government that under no circumstances whatsoever will that be a trading point.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the some of the points that I intend to make. Two days ago, the EU-Cyprus Association Council met in Luxembourg at ministerial level. It further supported Cyprus's application for membership of the Union. That meeting built on a meeting in Brussels on 8 June this year, which again gave clear guidelines. I have a copy of the document discussed in Brussels, which no doubt the Minister will have seen, and which gives clear guidelines for the structured dialogue that will take place between the European Union and Cyprus.
The document states:
The existing political dialogue between Cyprus and the EU on CFSP issues will be extended to include, in addition to the above mentioned meetings at the highest level and at Ministerial level, the following meetings and practices".
The document goes on to outline a whole range of issues that will be discussed in future meetings. That clearly shows the House and the Republic of Cyprus, and most certainly it will show Turkey and Mr. Denktash, that there is no stopping the application of Cyprus for membership of the European Union.
I briefly mentioned the meeting in Luxembourg on Monday and I shall quote some of the comments that were made at the meeting and in the document that was produced. The document states:
The European Union will do all it can to ensure that the period remaining until the start of accession negotiations will be put to good use in redoubling efforts to find a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus question.
The Council was also concerned by the problem of the great difference in the level of development between the island's two communities. It thus felt that Cyprus's accession to the EU should bring increased prosperity for both communities on the island, allowing the North to catch up economically and improving the outlook for employment and growth, particularly for the Turkish-Cypriot community. The Council therefore considered that the advantages of Cyprus's accession to the EU needed to be perceived more clearly by the Turkish-Cypriot community.
I have two further quotations from the document; first, it states:
The recent initiative of the President of the French Republic, President of the European Council, inviting Cyprus to meet the Heads of State and Government at the next European Council in Cannes is a further indication of the Union' s commitment to a course of action to reinforce the special relationship that already exists between us.


Secondly, it states:
Cyprus's accession will be in the interests of all Cypriots. It, of course, goes without saying that the Republic of Cyprus remains the sole negotiating partner for the European Union.
I hope that both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East will endorse the comments made in Monday's Luxembourg declaration and say most certainly that only the Republic of Cyprus will be involved in any discussion about the accession of Cyprus to the European Union.

Mr. Stephen Day: Who does the hon. Gentleman think will speak for the Turkish people when it comes to the application by Cyprus to join the European Union? It has been recognised in many UN documents that there are two communities and two peoples in Cyprus. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the present Government of the Republic of Cyprus, who are exclusively Greek Cypriot, can really speak for the Turkish Cypriot people?

Mr. Cox: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. As the hon. Member for Hendon, South and I have said, Mr. Denktash had ample opportunity to speak for the people of northern Cyprus had he wished to do so. I have already commented on the statement made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations about the reason for the lack of progress. Even as progress gets under way, I am sure that if Mr. Denktash wanted to show good will, interest and support for Cyprus's application, President Clerides of the Republic of Cyprus would welcome it.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cox: No.

Mr. Taylor: Ah!

Mr. Cox: The right hon. Gentleman might say "Ah," but I am not giving way because I have no doubt that he will wish to speak later.
There is no going back, and we need to make that very clear to Mr. Denktash. I hope that my Front-Bench colleague will make it clear that there is no going back on Cyprus's application and that Mr. Denktash and his friends in Turkey must be told once and for all that we have had enough of their behaviour and of their stalling tactics over the past 21 years. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) raised an important issue, but I should like to know what he has been saying to Mr. Denktash about the efforts that have been made in those 21 years and the repeated indictment of Mr. Denktash and his lack of meaningful involvement in, or support for, an honourable settlement.
The message sent from the House today should be that the future of Cyprus—the whole of Cyprus—lies in membership of the European Union. Those of us who support that aim fully recognise that the rights of Greek and Turkish Cypriots must be safeguarded. Thankfully, I believe that we now see the beginning of an end to the tragedy that Cyprus has suffered for so nearly 21 years.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in another debate on Cyprus. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member

for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on securing the debate. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who made such a powerful speech.
Cyprus matters to many people in this country who have links with it or have been there. It also matters to right hon. and hon. Members of all parties. There are some 300,000 Cypriots from both communities living in the United Kingdom, and there is a small but active and well-respected Greek Cypriot community in my constituency. The links between our two countries are very close, and long may they remain so.
The main tragedy of the division of the island, about which more than one hon. Member has spoken, is that a whole generation of people has grown up on both sides of the green line not knowing and not going to school with people from the other community. I find it interesting to meet members of earlier generations of Cypriots from both communities who always say that they have old school or college friends from the other side of the line, but that possibility of gaining a perspective on the problems of Cyprus is not open to the generation of people who have grown up since 1974.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South referred eloquently and rightly to the tragedy of the 1,619 missing Greek Cypriots of whom there is still no news. For their friends and families, that tragedy is as fresh and appalling today as it was 20 years ago.
The process that brought us to where we are today began largely with the events of 1983 and the so-called "UDI", or unilateral declaration of independence, by the regime in the north and the establishment of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a state—if I can use that word—which is still to be recognised by any part of the international community other than Turkey. In 1992, Dr. Boutros-Ghali proposed a set of ideas for a settlement providing a unitary but also bizonal, bicommunal federal state which has been bandied back and forth ever since.
As has been said, in March 1993 a package of confidence-building measures was introduced in respect of Varosha and Nicosia airport. It is one of life's unpleasant experiences to look across that suburb of Famagusta-Varosha and see the waste of property, human endeavour and economic resources.
It is fair to say that, throughout the discussion on the CBMs, President Clerides has accepted with open arms almost all the terms put to him, but there came a point when he, like many of us, took the view that the CBMs were becoming an end in themselves. Because there seemed to be no apparent progress in the short or medium term, it seemed that the CBMs would drag on. There was a real danger, not only in Cyprus but in the international community, that we would all lose sight of what the CBMs were for, which was to lay the groundwork for an overall settlement of the Cyprus problem. There were face-to-face discussions at various times, but they failed to produce results, although the activities of Joe Clark, the UN special representative, deserve praise.
As I mentioned in an intervention, it was Dr. Boutros-Ghali who cited a lack of political will on the part of the Turkish Cypriots as the reason for the failure to make progress. However, progress was made on 6 March this year when the Foreign Affairs Council agreed on the terms of a customs union with Turkey and on accession negotiations with Cyprus to start six months after the end of the intergovernmental conference.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said about the rumours that the end of IGC might be postponed and hope that the time scale for a solution for the Cyprus negotiations will not be extended.
The agreement also provides for a full and structured dialogue between the EU and Cyprus. Further details were discussed at the EU-Cyprus Association Council in June. It would be difficult not to agree that that was an excellent agreement for Cyprus. It has, rightly, been warmly welcomed by the Cypriot Government. President Clerides praised it and singled out the British Government in particular for their helpful contribution under the French presidency towards the final result. We have a tangible hope of great progress and a final solution of the Cyprus problem.
The communiqué issued in March by the EU Foreign Affairs Council stated:
the accession of Cyprus to the EU should lead to greater security and prosperity for each of the island's two communities",
which is right and fair. It goes on to state:
the accession negotiations will start on the basis of proposals by the Commission six months after the 1996 Conference, and taking its results into due account.
The communiqué also confirms
the EU's intention of continuing to support by all means at its disposal the efforts of the United Nations to achieve a global settlement of the Cypriot question.
It is important that we should not lose sight of that, but the document did not make any definite or clear link between the two matters.
As hon. Members have said already, both parts of Cyprus should join the EU together and, ideally, at the same time. It cannot be right, however, that the intransigence of the regime in the north should hold up the accession of the republic. There is a perfectly good precedent in Germany for one part of a state to join followed by another.
As we have heard, the Republic of Cyprus is almost uniquely qualified to join the EU on practically all grounds, especially economic. It is actually rather better qualified than some of the existing members would be, were they applying for membership today.
There are tangible benefits for both communities. It is arguable that the benefits are much greater and more tangible for those living in the north. The population of the occupied area, including the settlers, is some 30 per cent. of that of the south, but the gross national product in 1992 was less than 8 per cent. of the latter. Gross national product per capita was about one quarter of that in the Government-controlled area. Imports were only 9 per cent. of GNP, exports only about 5 per cent. and tourist revenues about 10 per cent. The rate of economic growth was about half that in the area controlled by the republic. It is well known that there are extremely high rates of inflation in the north. I am indebted for some of those figures to the Office for the Study of the Cyprus Problem.
It seems perfectly clear that, although both communities have something to gain, those in the north have most to gain in economic terms. There will be costs of reunification, as there were in Germany, but my impression, from discussing those issues with Greek Cypriots and Ministers, is that they are happy to shoulder those costs and regard the benefits of synergy with both

economies united as potentially massive, dealing with the shortage of labour in the south and producing more opportunities for investment in the north once that linkage is made.
It is important that negotiations go ahead in parallel for the intercommunal problem to be resolved, as well as for accession to the European Union. They should go ahead in parallel, but not be directly linked.
I hope, as I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members do, that both will reach fruition at roughly the same time and each will encourage the other, but, at the end of the day, there are two possible results that we cannot possibly accept. One is a permanent partition of the island or even, as has been threatened by Turkish Ministers recently, its integration into Turkey. The other is the possibility of a veto by the north of Cyprus on Cyprus's rapid movement towards membership of the European Union.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I have known Greek and Turkish Cyprus for many years. Unlike hon. Members who have spoken previously and who have large Greek Cypriot communities in their constituencies, as several have already declared, I have neither a Turkish Cypriot nor a Greek Cypriot in my constituency; therefore, I am not inclined to take either side.
The fact that there are two sides means that one must consider the point of view of both and not articulate the bias of one side only. As one who wants a settlement in Cyprus, the United Nations confidence-building measures to proceed as rapidly as possible and Cyprus's successful accession into the European Union, I consider it a great disservice to all the people of Cyprus for hon. Members to insult the leaders of one of the two communities On the island.
It was most unreasonable and unhelpful for the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who was fearful to give way to me, to compare President Denktash of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus with communist leaders in East Germany.
Rauf Denktash, the head of the Turkish Cypriot community, was elected in democratic elections in which many political parties participated.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that Mr. Denktash leads a regime that is illegal, is not recognised by the United Nations and, apart from Turkey, has no recognition whatever? So it is not acceptable for a democratic institution such as the House to speak about Mr. Denktash's position in the same way as one would speak about the position of President Clerides.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Lady either does not understand or has missed the point. I am referring to the point made by the hon. Member for Tooting, who compared President Denktash with a communist leader in East Germany, no doubt someone like Ulbricht. It is an insulting comparison and totally inaccurate, because there has been democracy in northern Cyprus for many years. Since 1974, there has been election after election with multiple parties taking part including those who represent the left, the centre and the right. In the recent presidential elections, President Denktash was not elected in the first round, as Cyprus has a similar system to France; he was elected in the second round, which shows that there was fair play from


beginning to end. It does not help a settlement in Cyprus for hon. Members to demonstrate bias and to insult leaders of one community or the other.
The hon. Member for Tooting said that the trouble commenced in Cyprus following the bloody intervention of the Turkish army in 1974. It is rather like Ireland, as it depends on the date when one starts. In Ireland, I always start with the garden of Eden, because any other date will certainly be wrong.
The hon. Member for Tooting continuously avoids the reality that the troubles in Cyprus started 25 years ago. There has been a division on that island for 25 years but, worse still, the bloody part of it was the overthrow of the elected Greek Cypriot President, Archbishop Makarios, by the friends of some of the people whom the hon. Member for Tooting now supports. President Sampson was a former terrorist who overthrew the elected President of Cyprus supported by the colonels from Athens. The hon. Gentleman conveniently avoids the fact that that started the trouble and the real division of the island in 1974.
We have to move on. Reference has been made to the comments by the United Nations Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, about the Turkish Cypriots dragging their feet, but we have moved beyond that and there has been progress. We have, first, the United Nations proposals for the confidence-building measures. I support them, and so do the Turkish Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriot President has made it clear that he supports the United Nations proposed package for confidence-building measures and on 16 June 1994 he confirmed his willingness to implement that package.
At that time, it was understood that President Clerides, on behalf of the Greek Cypriots, also supported the confidence-building measures. Like Conservative Members and the hon. Member for Tooting, we want the confidence-building measures to proceed. It would mean the return of thousands of Greek Cypriots to Maras and the reopening of Nicosia international airport, to the advantage of the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot peoples.
Now, however, there is a problem, and it does not come from the Turkish Cypriots, who accept the confidence-building measures without any preconditions—which the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) was not prepared to do. The Greek Cypriots are now laying down conditions; they are not prepared to implement the UN proposals without conditions. That barrier now lies in the way of implementing the confidence-building measures.
I certainly support the application by Cyprus, together with that by Malta, to join the European Union. The hon. Member for Tooting said that he hoped that the EU would discuss the application with the Greek Cypriot Government. He also gave the impression—perhaps he would like to confirm it—that he was quite prepared for a divided Cyprus to enter the EU before there was a settlement in the island.

Mr. Cox: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed it. That is a major problem, for Cyprus and for Turkey. We in the European Union have had a history of turning our backs on Turkey over the past two decades. Now, as we see other forces arising in the middle east and the eastern

Mediterranean area, the EU has belatedly begun to recognise the political importance of a rapprochement between Europe and Turkey. Progress is being made with the implementation of the association agreement between Turkey and the EU—I hope that it is not too late.
If we make the same mistake with Cyprus as Europe has made with Turkey, I fear for the outcome. We must first work for a settlement in Cyprus and then proceed with its accession to full membership of the EU. This is not just my view, or that of the Turks or the Turkish Cypriots. People recognise that going ahead with Cyprus's membership of the EU before there is a settlement can mean only that the Greek Cypriot part of the island will become part of the EU and the Turkish Cypriot part will not; so the Greek Cypriots will have achieved by another means what they have been trying to achieve for many years: enosis with Greece. They will have entered into political and economic union with Athens via membership of the EU.

Mr. John Marshall: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is as absurd to talk about enosis with Greece in this case as it would be to say that southern Ireland had achieved a united Ireland by being part of the EU with the United Kingdom?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may be more correct than he thinks. The fact that the Republic of Ireland is in the EU with the United Kingdom has, regrettably, encouraged the Conservative Government to produce what are known as the framework documents which would lead to a united Ireland. That is his party's policy at the moment; it is why we shall oppose it in a by-election tomorrow—

Mr. Marshall: You will not win it.

Mr. Taylor: You certainly will not—you will get 600 votes.
If we bring southern Cyprus alone into the EU, we will drive northern Cyprus—the Turkish Cypriot part of the island—into closer integration with mainland Turkey, which is the last thing we want to happen. I repeat: we want a settlement within Cyprus.
In a recent letter to right hon. and hon. Members, the Foreign Secretary said, in respect of Cyprus joining the EU:
We want to see the accession by a federal, bizonal, bicommunal, Cyprus, as foreseen in the United Nations Secretary-General's set of ideas".
The right hon. Gentleman thus implies that he wants a settlement in Cyprus before it joins the EU as an entire island. President Clinton says much the same. On 7 March this year, he said that he hoped that Cyprus would enter the European Union
as a federation in which all Cypriots could share the benefits of membership".
I want to conclude with comments by the Turkish Cypriots themselves. Hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have given the impression that the Turkish Cypriots are against membership of the EU. They are not—they would benefit from it. It has been rightly pointed out that the Turkish Cypriots are poorly off compared with their rich neighbours in Greek Cyprus. One reason for that is that the outside world recognises only Greek Cyprus, and all the international funding, from


the World bank, the United Nations, and so on, goes to the Greek Cypriots. None goes to the Turkish Cypriots, so they are discriminated against and they suffer as a result.
I want to end with a quotation from President Denktash, from a speech that he made during his 14-point peace initiative of 20 January this year:
The Turkish Cypriot side is prepared to discuss the subject of European Union membership of the future Federal Republic of Cyprus within the framework foreseen in the United Nations settle-by dates, once an agreement is reached on a bicommunal, bizonal, federal solution of the Cyprus question and the equal political status of the two peoples in Cyprus is respected.
So the Turkish Cypriots have confirmed that they want Cyprus to join the EU, but that there must first be a settlement in the island. Let us make a start with the confidence-building measures which the Turkish Cypriots support and the UN recommended. All we ask is that the Greek Cypriots support them as well, without preconditions.

Mr. Hartley Booth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for introducing this important debate. I am probably the most recent returner from Cyprus, as I came back from there at the beginning of last week.
Two important points need to be brought out in this debate. One of them has already been fleshed out by colleagues—the tragedy of Cyprus. I need not go on about that because it has been so well described. One incident from this, my third visit, will serve to highlight the human tragedy and focus our minds.
I was introduced to a lady in her early 40s. Her husband was one of those who went missing nearly 21 years ago, since when she has been waiting for news of him. It is worse than that, however: she cannot remarry and her life is in limbo; her child does not know his father. This is the result of a monstrous cruelty, and any pretensions that the north has to joining the club of the world in which we respect human rights must be thrown on the scrap heap until it is prepared to answer basic human rights questions about where the missing people are. What happened to them? Why are they treated in this way? They have been reduced to living in a cruel limbo.

Mr. Day: Has my hon. Friend ever considered the tragedy that overtook Cyprus just before 1974, when there was a terrible civil war between Greek Cypriots and many of them were slaughtered by other Greek Cypriots? Is there not a chance that some of the persons who went missing disappeared then? Let us not just heap all the blame on the Turkish Cypriots—we cannot prove the matter either way.

Mr. Booth: My hon. Friend has used the word "war", albeit civil war. In war, certain human rights conventions such as the Geneva convention apply, and we all subscribe to them. No such convention in the free world permits anyone to keep the husband of the lady I have described separated from her and in prison. I accept my hon. Friend's point, but I think that the House should accept my reply. The example that I have given focused my mind on the continuing crisis in Cyprus.
I was able to meet President Clerides during my time in Cyprus. I was fortunate in being briefed by the Foreign Office high commissioner before I had the meeting. Critical to me, and to the debate, is Britain's attitude towards the candidacy of Cyprus for entry into the European Union. Cyprus has the 26th largest economy in the world. With only 700,000 people, that is a remarkable performance. It is likely when it enters the EU, as I hope it will, to vote with us. It has a common history with ourselves.
I am glad that we are now saying that Cyprus, as a nation, must come into the EU. I am glad also that the Foreign Office has said that it is in favour of talks beginning next year, six months after the intergovernmental conference. I support the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South that the talks could begin sooner.
The key point is whether Turkey, or effectively the north of Cyprus, has any form of veto on the talks that are to take place. I was clearly briefed by the Foreign Office's representative in Nicosia. It would seem to be our position that, although it would be logical for the north and the south of Cyprus to come together before talks begin, the talks are scheduled to start before there is such an agreement. I was told that there is no veto in the hands of the north. Members have talked about the necessity to allow Mr. Denktash, in the north, to arrive at a solution with the south. He has had years to do that. Time after time, he has had the opportunity to reach an agreement.
The reality is that Mr. Denktash is a puppet of Ankara. It must be accepted that, with the placement of 35,000 troops in northern Cyprus, that area is no more than a vassal state of Ankara. We represent so many people who have come from Cyprus and we want to ensure that both Turkish and Greek Cypriots are given a good deal. We must accept, however, that there is an occupying army in the north of the island. First, we must put pressure on Ankara and not only on Mr. Denktash, the leader of a vassal state.
We have inherited democracy from Greece and Greek Cypriots. Those of them who talk about democracy have an accord with those of us who hold democracy dear. We in this place know the heritage of the past with Cyprus. We want to see Cyprus in Europe. Indeed, we want to see it in the EU. We owe it to Cyprus to support freedom on that island and to support its free entry into Europe.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on his good fortune and effort in securing the debate. It is a timely debate, given the talks that were held in London less than a month ago. We have all gathered that the talks were extremely disappointing. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary told me during Foreign and Commonwealth questions on 7 June that
they did not make as much progress as we had wished".—[Official Report, 7 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 203.]
One of the reasons for the disappointment was that Turkish-Cypriot attitudes had not changed. Britain was considering what further steps to take.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: One of the problems over the past 21 years has been the shifting positions of Mr. Denktash on the heads of agreement,


which were agreed in 1982 against the background of a federal solution that was hizonal and bicommunal. Is it not therefore time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said, for an international conference to ensure that all aspects of the Cyprus problem are examined? The United Nations policy, in trying over the past 21 years to shuffle off to the two communities responsibility for bringing about a peace settlement, has not proved to he effective.

Mrs. Roche: I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said.
It is important for the British Government to use the fact that it is a guarantor power to make every effort to make it clear that one of the reasons for the failure of talks has been the intransigence of Mr. Denktash and Turkish-Cypriot attitudes. I hope that the Minister will tell us from where Britain goes forward now and what Britain will do as a guarantor power to get meaningful talks under way.
Two great issues are the missing people and enclaved families. I know that the figure has already been mentioned, but 1,619 Cypriots are still missing following the invasion and occupation of 1974. We know that President Clerides announced a new initiative in January and pledged to step up efforts to discover the fate of those Cypriots.
The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) talked rightly about the great human tragedies behind the fate of the missing people. Bearing in mind the fact that we are a guarantor power with obligations, and taking account of the international conventions and agreements to which the Government are a subscriber, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the missing people.
Enclaved people represent a great and increasing problem. Greek Cypriots who are living in the occupied area of the north are facing severe harassment. About 20.000 Greek Cypriots lived in the area just after the Turkish invasion. There are now fewer than 500. They are mostly elderly. That is the situation despite the signing of an agreement in 1975 by Mr. Denktash guaranteeing that Greek Cypriot families would have freedom of movement and basic human rights. Those guarantees have not been honoured. One lady in this position is a primary school teacher. She has been subject to constant harassment. In a report in 1994, the UN stated that conditions for the enclaved
fall far short of the standard of normal life.
Britain is in a unique position and has a responsibility to safeguard the lives of the enclaved families. We need to know the role that the Government are playing in ensuring that basic human rights are upheld.
There has been much discussion about the application made by Cyprus to join the EU. I think that all hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see Cyprus accede to membership as soon as possible. It is extremely important, however, that we are reassured about the Government's position—namely, that membership does not depend on the resolution of the Cyprus problem, as many people, including Mr. Denktash, would want it to be.
Perhaps I could have the Minister's comments on the remarks of the Prime Minister. Reporting to the House on the Corfu European Council, almost a year ago, the Prime Minister commented:

It is a considerable way off before Cyprus is likely to be admitted as a member of the Community. Certainly, if the dispute between the north and south is unresolved, it will be extremely difficult for Cyprus to be admitted to the Community … clearly we hope that that dispute will be resolved before it is possible for Cyprus to become a member of the European Union."—[Official Report, 27 June 1994: Vol. 245, c. 567.]
I completely reject the tenor of those remarks and would hope to hear a similar rejection from the Minister today. There must be no veto handed to Mr. Denktash on that area.
Both communities in Cyprus, as well as the large number of Cypriots in Britain—particularly in my constituency—have a right to expect that their Government, the British Government who represent them, will use their very best endeavours to bring about a solution to the problem. Britain should play a full part in working towards the removal of Turkish troops from Europe, the ending of the misery of the enclaved people, the right of the refugees to return, and ensuring that Cyprus is able to play its proper part in the world as a united island and country once again.

Ms Joyce Quin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on his good fortune in securing an Adjournment debate on this important subject. I do not know whether he is similarly lucky in the lottery or the football pools, but he certainly seems to do well in House of Commons ballots. I am glad that, once again, he has given us this opportunity.
I know that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, share the hon. Gentleman's commitment to bring the issue of Cyprus to the attention of the House and the public. Indeed, Opposition Front-Bench Members share that commitment as well, to ensure that the issue is fully debated and that Cyprus is not forgotten, in all the different political, foreign and domestic issues that we are dealing with in the House.
Many hon. Members have spoken from deep knowledge of Cyprus and, indeed, have spoken movingly about their personal sympathy with the plight of families who have suffered because of the division of the island.
In my own brief comments, I shall focus on the current situation in Cyprus, on the prospects for progress and on the particularly important issue of its application to the European Union. In one way, the hon. Member for Hendon, South is right: sometimes, progress seems to have been slow. None the less, things do not stand still in politics, and that is as true of Cyprus as elsewhere.
We have seen a continuation of particular trends, some of which have been highlighted by hon. Members this morning. Economically, the Republic of Cyprus is extremely successful. In that sense, there seems to be very much a growing contrast in the situation in the occupied north, where the standard of living is much lower and is getting lower all the time.

Mr. Day: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Quin: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not intend to give way. Usually, I am keen to give way in debates, but these debates are largely for Back Benchers, and time for Front-Bench Members is very squeezed. I now have only seven minutes and if I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I will then feel honour-bound to give way to other hon. Members.
The situation in northern Cyprus is very difficult. We have seen a continuation of the trend of settlement from mainland Turkey into northern Cyprus, and Turkish Cypriots leaving the north. Recently, the Turkish Prime Minister seems to have said something to Mr. Denktash about Turkey not being able to subsidise the north in the long-term future. Although Mr. Denktash is back in power in northern Cyprus, after the elections, none the less, his victory was less decisive than in previous elections, which highlighted the growing discontent and concern in northern Cyprus.
Hon. Members have referred to the importance of negotiations and confidence-building measures. Indeed, reference was made to the situation in Varosha and to the hopes that we had that some progress could be made there, and to the reopening of Nicosia airport, which, as hon. Members pointed out, would be in the interests of Turkish Cyprus and would very much help the position of Turkish Cypriots there. Therefore, it is particularly sad that progress has not been able to be made.
Yet, of course, we know that the search for a settlement, to agree confidence-building measures, must continue. It has to be persevered with. There is really no alternative other than to embark on that course of action. That is particularly true given the application of the Republic of Cyprus to join the European Union. Labour has welcomed that application and we strongly support it. Perhaps I can point out to the House that Labour is already working with its sister party in Cyprus, EDEK, within the European Parliament and the European institutions in preparation for that enlargement and accession.
It is true that, economically, the Republic of Cyprus is nearer to fulfilling the criteria for European monetary union, for example, than many members of the European Union itself. The only criterion on which it is out of line, but not far, is on interest rates. It already fulfils the other criteria. Indeed, if the present Government persist in their European approach, it could mean that Cyprus will be playing more of a role at the heart of Europe than Britain, despite our Prime Minister's claims to be at the heart of Europe.
There will, of course, be economic difficulties. I think that they will he fairly modest in scale, but concern has been expressed about difficulties that particular industries in Cyprus might face, and the situation concerning capital and exchange controls. But there is a great determination on the part of the Republic of Cyprus to make the application to the European Union a successful one. I am very glad that the timetable has been agreed and that negotiations will begin six months after the ending of the IGC.
Some hon. Members talked about a trade-off with Turkey. I very much support my hon. Friends who said that Turkey must not be able to have a veto on the application of Cyprus. I also support their views and share their concern about the question of EU membership for Turkey itself. We know, of course, that Turkey was allowed an association agreement, but I understand that that agreement is partly frozen today because of the legitimate concerns about human rights in Turkey. Perhaps the Minister will give us an update on that situation.
There are questions about dealings with the Denktash regime, but I reiterate the point that was made by my hon. Friends that the lines of communication are already open in that respect. We want to use the links that we have to encourage both Turkish Cyprus and Turkey to he ready to negotiate properly and to begin to move towards a settlement. I believe that nobody can doubt that a settlement would be in the interests of all, especially a settlement based on the integrity of the island, and respect for human rights, for minority as well as majority rights. I believe that EU membership can be a way of promoting that and can lead to a situation that would he in the interests of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots.
Federation was mentioned, and there are, of course, many federal examples in the European Union and outside it: the Federal Republic of Germany, the federal arrangements in Spain or, indeed, the federal system in Switzerland. There are all kinds of interesting federal examples that one can look at. Federation must mean respect for human rights and it must, particularly on an island such as Cyprus, take into account the interests of the island as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) spoke—quite rightly—of the important British role, because of our position as guarantor power, our strong troop presence on the island, our strong political and social links with the island and the fact that we are a member of the European Union and of the United Nations Security Council. All those factors are important, and give us a particular responsibility. The United States' role is also vital in that respect.
The Labour party is strongly committed to a peaceful resolution of the Cyprus issue. We believe that the occupation must cease and that Cyprus must be reunited, but that full safeguards must be provided for the Turkish minority. The European Union negotiations can be helpful. Indeed, Cyprus's accession to the EU can provide a great opportunity to find a solution, and we should therefore proceed with it as determinedly and expeditiously as possible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): This has been all too short a debate on an important subject, but it has been thoughtful, informed and heartfelt, and the whole House owes a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who has rightly been steadfast in his determination to ensure that the House considers Cyprus on every possible occasion.
We have heard excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Finchley (Mr. Booth), and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr. Day), for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) hoped to speak but could not do so because of the limited time. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) specifically told me that he would have liked to be here for the debate but, for other reasons, could not attend.
Of course my hon. Friend the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who is a Lord Commissioner to the Treasury, have also taken a keen


interest in the debate, although they could not participate in it. Many Opposition Members have taken an equally keen interest.
Of course it is right that our relations with Cyprus and the international efforts to resolve the Cyprus problem should be the regular focus of attention in the House. Cyprus matters to the United Kingdom, and to all of us. We have seen how, since the events of the 1960s and the estrangement of the two communities, mistrust has been allowed to fester and the unhappy situation has been allowed to ossify. As has been said before, nobody has won and everybody has lost by reason of the futile conflict.
The division of Cyprus has been damaging and wasteful. We cannot and do not accept that it should continue indefinitely; we must not and do not resign ourselves to the continued division of the island. A lasting settlement to the Cyprus problem cannot be based on division.
It therefore behoves us, and the international community, to do all that we can to help to resolve that most stubborn of problems. Ultimately, only the two Cypriot communities themselves can do that. But we can help and advise, and we can support, cajole and encourage. We can help the communities to see that with a settlement everybody will win, and nobody will lose.
United Nations Security Council resolution 939, passed in July 1994, called for fundamental and far-reaching reflection on ways of approaching the Cyprus problem in a manner that will yield results. In that context it also called for the earliest possible implementation of confidence-building measures—the proposals to bring life back to the ghost town of Varosha and to reopen the international airport at Nicosia under United Nations control.
The UN Secretary-General gave impetus to the first aspect of the Security Council resolution in October 1994, and invited the two community leaders to talks with his representative in Cyprus. We very much welcomed that as a chance for the two leaders to meet face to face and to get right down to business. Some positive aspects emerged from those contacts, but, sadly, in the end no progress resulted. It was an opportunity missed. Since then the UN has stayed active and has kept talking and encouraging the leaders towards a common perception of the kind of movement that is now needed for real progress to be made. Towards the end of last month representatives from both communities in Cyprus came to London to start another round of exploratory discussions. The talks, which were firmly within the framework of the UN process on Cyprus, were confidential and remain so, but their objective was simply to stoke up momentum for the UN efforts towards a settlement in Cyprus. There were, alas, no startling breakthroughs, but nobody has thrown in the towel. The Americans and ourselves will review the discussions with the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus and with the UN, and will consider with them how the process might now be taken forward.
It is clear that there has not been a period of idleness—not for us, not for the UN and not for the wider international community. We still intend to persevere in seeking a solution.
In another international context there has been a notable phase of activity on Cyprus which, it is probably fair to say, has yielded a greate: sense of progress. I am referring to the application to join the European Union, which has

already been mentioned in the debate. The Republic of Cyprus applied to join the EU in July 1990. The European Commission submitted its opinion on Cyprus's application in June 1993, and that opinion confirmed Cyprus's European identity and character, and its vocation to belong to the Community.
In Corfu in June 1994 the Heads of Government of the European Union agreed that Cyprus would be involved in the next stage of enlargement, and that was reaffirmed at the Essen European Council in December 1994. The Commission reviewed the question of Cyprus's accession to the EU in February, and the review confirmed Cyprus's suitability for accession and led to an important further step forward at the Foreign Affairs Council on 6 March.
The Foreign Affairs Council conclusions of 6 March first outlined the circumstances under which accession negotiations will start six months after the end of the 1996 intergovernmental conference. The Council called for progress in the intercommunal dispute, and noted that some useful points had been identified recently. It also stated that accession should benefit both communities in Cyprus. That all amounts to a significant step forward, which has rightly been welcomed by all member states and by the Cyprus Government. It marks further progress by Cyprus towards the objective of EU accession.
At the beginning of this week the decisions taken at the EU's Association Council with Cyprus set out a substantial pre-accession strategy with structured dialogue. So we can continue to make progress even before formal accession negotiations begin.
The conclusions acknowledged what we all wish to see—accession to the EU by a federal, bizonal, bicommunal Cyprus. We want the prospect of EU accession to make a positive contribution to the search for a solution in the island. The sequence that would make best sense, which I know many of us would like to see, is a settlement followed by accession. But let me make it clear to every Member of the House that no party should feel that that gives it a veto over the process. The aim is not to reward intransigence but to create incentives for progress and to ensure that there is real progress in the time scale set by the 6 March conclusions.
There was, however, another significant aspect to those conclusions. The Foreign Affairs Council also called for special attention to be paid to the particular social and economic conditions in northern Cyprus. It asked the Commission to develop a dialogue with the Turkish Cypriot community with the aim of clarifying its concerns about EU membership and considering how those could be dealt with.
We attach a lot of importance to that. We have made clear throughout our hope that the process of EU accession would contribute positively to the search for a solution to the Cyprus problem. Properly understood, the prospect of EU accession should provide additional incentives to both communities to reach a settlement. It is vital that the EU succeeds in assuring both communities that the terms of accession can enshrine and safeguard such a settlement rather than undermining it.
Our objective is to help to realise a workable and enduring settlement. We have no other aim, no hidden agenda. We have actively and wholeheartedly supported the UN Secretary-General and his mission on Cyprus. But, as has been said, we do have a special position, and


special responsibilities which we cannot and do not ignore. We are one of the guarantor powers. We have close links with both communities.
Our contribution has to be more than mere encouragement from the touchline. We are determined to play a full and active part in seeking a solution, and an intensive dialogue with both communities in Cyprus is energetically conducted by our high commissioner in Nicosia. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley will confirm that the closest continuing daily interest is taken in finding out what part we can play in helping to solve the problems. Our role in facilitating the exploratory discussions is another proof of our commitment to progress on Cyprus within the UN framework.
We also need to keep in mind something that has so far not been mentioned today—the fact that there are 400 British soldiers in the UN peacekeeping force in Cyprus. They are there to sustain conditions in which a settlement can be pursued. Those United Kingdom troops are not in Cyprus to vitrify the status quo. The status quo is not acceptable.
Within the EU we have been at the forefront of activity over Cyprus. We are fully committed to developing the relationship between Cyprus and the EU, and I must make it clear that we welcome the prospect of Cyprus's eventual accession. That is what we are working towards. That is what we hope to achieve. In March this year, President Clerides singled out the United Kingdom among Eli member states for our helpful contribution over Cyprus. We have been working hard on Cyprus's behalf and we intend to continue to do so.
The recent history of Cyprus is depressing. The present position is totally unsatisfactory, but recognition of that must spur us on to redouble our efforts. A solution can come about only through the consent and reconciliation of the two communities. Above all, that calls for a readiness on their part to negotiate constructively, positively and boldly. We must remain active in establishing a framework within which such a process can take place and in encouraging the necessary dialogue. The UK will remain at the forefront of those international efforts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

Bristol Cancer Help Centre

1 pm

Ms Jean Corston: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the Bristol cancer help centre and I thank my 73 parliamentary colleagues who have signed early-day motion 1203, standing in my name, on the subject of the centre's future.
The centre is a small Bristol charity. For several years, it developed an excellent reputation for the treatment of people with various types of cancer. It had a waiting list and worked in close co-operation with general practitioners.
It is extremely important to say that most people using the centre had already had what could be described as conventional or orthodox medical cancer treatment and that the treatment provided by the centre complemented rather than provided an alternative to conventional medicine.
The treatment offered by the centre included diet, which was approved by a national health service nutritionist, massage, meditation, group support and self-help. It could be summed up as an holistic approach to the treatment of and therapy for cancer. Some people have found such an approach missing in conventional treatment in the NHS and elsewhere.
In 1985, an agreement was reached that the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and Cancer Research Campaign would finance two research projects on breast cancer, to be conducted under the auspices of the Institute of Cancer Research. Two aspects were involved. The first involved the consideration of the survival rates of women attending the Bristol centre and the second an examination of quality of life comparisons between people who had been treated conventionally and those who had attended the Bristol centre with, or without, concurrent conventional treatment. Regrettably the second aspect—the quality of life survey—was never undertaken, but a protocol was agreed and among the signatories was Sir Walter Bodmer, the director general of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund.
The project was set up under the directorship of Professor Claire Chilvers. After two years of a five-year study, interim findings purported—I emphasise that—to show that
women with breast cancer attending the Bristol cancer help centre fared worse than those receiving conventional treatment only".
The survey went on to say that women from Bristol were nearly three times as likely to relapse, and almost twice as likely to die as those having conventional treatment.
The survey gave death rate figures for Bristol attenders. It was significant, however, that it never gave any death rate figures for control subjects and that, to this day, has not done so. It also said that there was a causal relationship between attending the Bristol centre, developing secondary cancer and dying.
Those figures were immediately questioned by many people, including Professor Karol Sikora, a well-respected and internationally renowned oncologist, and the Cancer Research Campaign's press officer, who, I understand, has some scientific training. Astonishingly, however, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund decided to hold a press conference at its headquarters in Lincolns Inn Fields. It was organised by its press officer and chaired by one of its committee chairpersons.
The matter attracted huge publicity on or around 5 September 1990. I saw an item on it on the 6 o'clock news. It was before my election to the House. I had known of the work of the centre and I was utterly astonished to be told that women who went to Bristol were much more likely to die. One could only guess the effect that that would have on people who had had, or who were undergoing, treatment at the Bristol centre.
On 8 September 1990, an article was published in The Lancet. In that article, the possibility that the Bristol cancer help centre patients may have had worse diseases to begin with was virtually dismissed, and it said emphatically that Bristol patients "fare worse". The description of the methodology was not as rigorously comparative and the subsets of patients were not as clearly distinguished as they should in such a research paper. The article also gave little impression of the survey being an "interim" study.
Of course that article had a devastating effect on the centre's finances, reputation and future, on the people who had been treated there and, in particular, on those who had taken part in the research. One said on a recent "Taking Liberties" programme on BBC television that she awoke in the early hours of the next morning to find her 12-year-old daughter standing by her bed. When she asked her for an explanation, her daughter said, "They said on television last night you were going to die and I thought that I ought to be with you." In the succeeding months, that child needed counselling because she thought that her mother was going to die.
The centre had been refused a list of the women who had taken part in the study, so it could not contact them to alert them. It is important to stress that, of the 333 women in the Bristol study, 112 had attended the Bristol centre for only one day. These people were therefore saying, in effect, that if one went to the Bristol centre for one day, one was two or three times more likely to die of cancer. That beggars belief.
Professor Claire Chilvers said on television:
People coming to Bristol should be extremely worried".
Professor McElwain said:
Women who go to the Bristol centre relapse faster and die faster".
Up to a year later, such statements were being repeated by Professor Michael Baum, who said that women from Bristol died faster, and Gordon McVie of the Cancer Research Campaign, who said that Bristol patients fared worse.
In November 1990, within two months of that press conference, it became clear that the research was, to put it no stronger, flawed, if manipulated in other ways. A specialist said on the BBC television programme that the people conducting the research had, in effect, compared apples with pears as Bristol women were more ill when they went to the centre for therapy and treatment.
It was not possible to have a randomised control trial because women who attended the centre did not do so in the way people attend an oncology department or are referred to a hospital. It is not a random matter. There should have been a matched sample so that people were aware that like was being compared with like in terms of severity of illness and prognosis. Surely the level of mismatch alone in the sample should have been sufficient cause for withdrawal of the paper on scientific grounds, but it was not withdrawn.
There was a gradual realisation that the results were, in the Imperial Cancer Research Fund's own words, "wrong" and that "the results were invalid". Sir Walter Bodmer has said:
The research suffered from a disastrous mistake in the interpretation.
That is surely a damning sentence from the director general of one of our most respected cancer charities. Sir Walter also said that it was not appropriate for a funding body to evaluate the research prior to publication.
Having signed a protocol, surely there is an obligation to have at least a proper and adequate period of review or some analysis of the figures before using them at a huge press conference with attendant publicity likely on national television and in all the newspapers—which is what happened. Some people in the medical scientific community will find it breathtaking that people signed a protocol and then said that there was no obligation to evaluate the research before publication. But the damage has been done. This research has never been retracted. No access has ever been allowed to the trial data: requests for such access have been refused.
There must be some sort of independent review of the trial data by a body such as the General Medical Council. The House should carefully consider referring this matter to the Select Committee on Health because a good deal of public money is involved and some patients from the control group are in Surrey and Sussex. They took part in the research in good faith and the research should be seen to have scientific integrity and to contain information on which we can rely.
In The Times Higher Education Supplement in 1993 Professor Garland, who is the chief executive of the Institute of Cancer Research, stated, albeit on a wholly different matter:
If the damaging statements of a report arc shown to be false, the longer they remain uncorrected the stronger the case that the authors are acting maliciously.
I agree absolutely with Professor Garland, who adequately sums up what many people consider to be the status of the interim and incorrect findings. The data were paid for by people who give to cancer charities, by those who shop in cancer charity shops, by the Government and therefore by the taxpayer.
At that stage the Bristol survey support group was set up. It consists of women who had treatment at the centre and who were outraged at the way in which the whole matter had been handled. It is a testimony to the empowering nature of the holistic approach pioneered at Bristol that those women were able to make contact with each other because there was no way that they could get access to names and addresses. They decided to do something about the matter and two women from that group are in the Public Gallery.
It is the first time in British medical research that a group of subjects have not only banded together but have demanded that the results of a study in which they were used be retracted. The members of the group subsequently took the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign to the charity commissioners and won. The bodies were censured by the commissioners in January 1994 for inadequate supervision of the research, and the commissioners recommended guidelines on the responsibilities of charities that fund medical research.
There, in a way, the story rests but meanwhile the centre has funds to stay open only until September. Of course the flow of patients to the centre stopped completely because no reputable general practitioner could say to a patient, "Yes, I can unhesitatingly recommend the centre." They unhesitatingly recommended it before, but cannot do so now because of this puzzling research. Some patients decided to ignore the advice and continued to go to the centre, which is now attended by a reasonable number of people. It is often full but its funding has virtually dried up because people naturally took notice of what was being said by the reputable bodies which fund cancer research.
Although the centre has funds to stay open only until the autumn, the university of Bristol recently gave the centre accreditation to run courses for family doctors and other health professionals in the treatment of cancer patients.
I pay tribute to Bristol cancer help centre because I know people who have been there and they have said that it was the first time that they felt that they had some role to play in the treatment of their disease. They felt that they could take responsibility, be part of a decision process and could take steps to help themselves to get better. They found that it was possible to hand together for mutual support and, in a sense, be given hack some measure of responsibility for their own lives, mortality and future. I also pay tribute to the women's support group which has done a wonderful job in bringing the issue to public attention and in getting recognition for the inadequacy of the research.
I thank the BBC "Taking Liberties" television series which broadcast a programme on 23 May on the issue, entitled "Cancer Wars". In that programme there was, a reference to the people who run cancer, as it were, the cancer barons, who saw themselves in charge and greatly resented what they saw as intervention from people who did not provide their kind of conventional, orthodox treatment. Of course it is easy for conventional therapists to dismiss people who practise complementary or alternative therapies as quacks and the like, but they must take note of the fact that, increasingly, people find efficacy in complementary therapies of which there is increasing use. Some 35 per cent. of GPs now want information on complementary therapies and would be happy to refer patients. A survey in 1994 showed that 67 per cent. of health authorities purchased complementary therapies.
Government support is needed to develop the Bristol model as a subject for research because the work of the Bristol centre is quite splendid. We must discover whether it is possible—I think that it is—to foster the integration of this kind of approach into mainstream health care. Its worth has been recognised by many people, including Professor Sikora, who visited the centre and said that it provided a holistic approach to the patient which he and his colleagues had not provided in the past. They had been treating the disease and not seeing the patient and his role in quite the way that they could have done.
A body such as the General Medical Council should rule on allegations of misconduct in scientific research, and that suggestion is separate from the issues of retraction, withdrawal and referral to the Select Committee on Health. This matter must be resolved. A few weeks ago at a conference in Switzerland somebody said, "Well, you know, the Bristol figures have been


called into question." That comment will be repeated until someone calls a halt and says that the figures were wrong. There is a terrible cover-up. People see the matter in terms of their personal or professional reputation, but there is a wider public interest and I hope that the House can address it. Stories based on that of David and Goliath do not always end with David winning, but this one certainly should.

Lady Olga Maitland: I rise to reply to the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) on behalf of the Institute of Cancer Research, whose research facility is based in my constituency in Sutton, where it is linked to the Royal Marsden hospital. The institute is known worldwide and it has a reputation for excellence. It is appropriate, therefore, that I respond to the hon. Lady's remarks.
In the very brief time available, I want to tell the House that the institute feels that early-day motion 1203, on which this debate is based, is wrong in its view in almost every regard and is not founded on fact. If the House will permit me, I shall cite five reasons why it thinks that. The research was not invalidated by its methods. Such methods are widely used for evaluation of clinical outcome. Indeed, less rigorous methods have led to the much-praised Calman proposals to concentrate cancer care in specialist centres.
The researchers neither drew nor published unwarranted conclusions from their data. Their research is not invalidated by a subsequent correction. The outcome was broadly the same. There was no evidence that the Bristol centre therapy slowed or halted progress of breast cancer. The research at the institute was closely supervised. It neither started nor continued without expert and independent approval. Those who led the research were highly skilled and had excellent records. The report was offered for external and expert review prior to publication. It is interesting to note that no adverse comment was received.
The motion calls for the report to be withdrawn. None of the criteria for withdrawal of a research report is met; there is no proper reason to do so. Everyone in the House regrets that the Bristol patients were not informed of the results of the study before they were publicised. The Bristol centre—not the researchers—has taken responsibility for communication with its patients. It should he added that the centre had several weeks between receipt of the draft report and its publication, but the patients remained uninformed.

Ms Corston: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lady Olga Maitland: indicated assent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I must point out that the minutes on the clock are moving on and the Minister is not going to be left with much time to reply to the debate.

Ms Corston: rose—

Lady Olga Maitland: In that case, I do not wish to give way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, simply because time is so short. It is important to point out that the institute does not regard patients as pawns; they are regarded as people. That is why the institute staff conduct cancer research.
The early-day motion on which the debate is based is not only riddled with flaws, but inappropriate. The place to resolve doubt and uncertainty in science is not in this Chamber but in the practical arena among scientists, laboratories, clinics and experts. I trust that, in future, we leave serious scientific analysis to the experts—not to hon. Members in parliamentary debates.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I thank the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) for initiating this debate. The subject of it is clearly of great concern to many people, not only to those in her constituency but to many people around the country. The hon. Lady may wish to know that my noble Friend Baroness Cumberlege will meet Lord Ashley and representatives of the centre on 19 June.
The Government very much appreciate that many patients derive benefit from the use of complementary therapies, such as those pioneered for cancer patients at the Bristol centre. Complementary therapies clearly can play a very important role in enhancing emotional, psychological and physical well-being. As with any other treatment, of course, the use of complementary medicine for patients with cancer is a matter for discussion between the individual patient and health care professionals.
Hon. Members may have seen an article in the British Medical Journal last year, which described a research project looking at the use of complementary therapies by people with cancer. That concluded that a sizeable proportion of people receiving conventional cancer treatments also used complementary therapies, from which they derived psychological benefits. I am pleased that the medical profession is increasingly acknowledging that an holistic approach to treating patients is appropriate. That is particularly important in treating a disease such as cancer, which is always frightening for patients and their families and for which conventional medicine often does not have the complete answer.
The holistic approach to cancer care taken by the Bristol cancer help centre, exploring the potential for healing through a variety of complementary therapies, is one way of addressing the needs of people living with cancer. It seeks to meet the needs of cancer patients—mostly women with breast cancer—and their families by offering to help with the physical, spiritual, emotional and psychological problems of people who have cancer. Of course we support those aims.
As always, we have a duty to protect the public from inappropriate or dangerous treatments and, indeed, from false hopes. All forms of health care must be subjected to rigorous evaluation and audit. Sometimes difficult judgments have to be made without as much evidence as we would like. The Department is funding a research project being carried out by the medical care research unit at Sheffield university into the impact within primary care that complementary therapists have on such things as patient satisfaction, hospital referrals, prescribing patterns and drug costs and repeat attendances.
Five years ago, as has been said, a group of cancer charities funded a research project to evaluate the effectiveness of the holistic regimes practised at the Bristol cancer help centre. This debate has discussed the publication of that research in 1990 and its conclusion that


women treated at the Bristol cancer help centre had poorer survival rates than those receiving only conventional treatments. I understand that it is possible that that research has contributed to the current financial problems facing the centre.
Following the conclusion, the Charity Commission set up an inquiry which showed that, although the arrangements by the charities concerned met a number of the requirements for the funding of research by charities, their procedures for the supervision of research and control of the results were not entirely satisfactory. That meant that charities could not be sure that charity funds were being properly applied in independent research. Recent media coverage focusing on the shortcomings of that research will doubtless affect public perception of the centre and attitudes to donations.
It is the responsibility of the whole medical research community and its sponsors—which include research councils, medical charities, Government Departments and industry—to ensure good practice in the conduct of research. The system operates on a largely self-regulatory basis through the principles of peer review and guidelines on good practice. Following the Charity Commission inquiry into the research of treatment and outcomes at the Bristol cancer help centre, the commission issued guidelines on 2 June 1994 which provide an agreed framework within which charities can operate when they support research. In addition, the Medical Research Council has recently set up a working group to re-examine the issue of good research practice.
Any retraction—mentioned several times in this debate—of the research study must remain for its authors, those bodies which funded it, and The Lancet in which the study was published. This is a professional matter and one in which the Department of Health has no jurisdiction.
It is of course open to the Bristol cancer help centre to seek funding support from health authorities whose patients are receiving care. If health authorities believe that complementary therapies such as those provided by the centre are safe, effective and of benefit to patients, they can use health authority funds to purchase them. It is, however, a matter for individual health authorities to decide, in the light of the needs of their local population and other health priorities.
I should add that the Government are committed to encouraging research into cancer. Priorities have recently been identified as part of the national health service research and development programme, which is expanding to take forward research in that and other areas. The Government do not, however, operate a research grants scheme that invites research applications in line with agreed priorities. Programmes of work are agreed following peer review. The programme of work in respect of priorities in cancer will be finalised shortly and further research applications may be invited at the end of this year.
I was aware of the Bristol cancer help centre and, some years ago, I read the "Bristol Diet" with great interest. I very much regret that these matters have arisen. I have no doubt that mistakes were made, which were aggravated further by some very sensational reporting of matters that are sensitive and should not have been entered into without full knowledge of the underlying facts.

Fire Services (Scarborough and Whitby)

Mr. John Sykes: One of the topics with which I intend to deal is sparsity of funding for the county council's fire services and, judging by the sparsity of Members in the House, I have ample reason to address that topic.
This is something of a novel experience as I have never before applied for an Adjournment debate. I have come here straight from Room 11—fresh from the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Bill—and I hope that you will bring me hack to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I somewhat inadvertently refer to hon. Members as my honourable chum or my honourable pedigree chum, but I shall try to remain in order.
I decided that I would apply for an Adjournment debate only if there was an emergency in my constituency, and I fear that such an emergency has cropped up. Just over a year ago, at 2.30 am on 5 May 1994, a fire swept through the Richmond hotel, which is a Department of Social Security hostel in my constituency, killing a 20-month-old toddler, Terry Jones, and a 33-year-old girl, Katherine Harrison. The baby's four-year-old sister, Natasha, was left fighting for her life.
I received a letter at the time from one of the firemen involved, who said:
I shall never forget the initial scene that greeted us when we arrived or the screams from so many people from windows and also from their friends already out on the street … it was my specific task … to enter the building and to search the locked rooms on the second and third floors for two people reported missing. It was a very long and difficult night, despite the many successful rescues and the mood back at the fire station was 'quiet' … you should know that our job (already very difficult and extremely dangerous that night) without the attendance of the Scarborough's retained firefighters, would have been almost impossible…
When I arrived home the following morning I was surprised to find that I was too upset for some time to tell Christine"—
his wife—
what had happened. Stephen (my youngest son) was getting ready for school and the similarity with some of the children seen the night before was a distressing reminder. We're very fortunate …
This tragedy will no doubt add weight to your argument and of course anyone unfortunate enough to be residing in such places at least deserves to he protected properly. I was also heartened to see that the Prime Minister is willing to address the problem.
What the House does riot know is that that fire station is directly opposite the Richmond hotel. How many others might have perished on that dreadful night but for that? I know that hon. Members will appreciate what a painful subject this is for us to deal with and will also be shocked when they hear that the county council wants to cut one fire engine from Scarborough, Whitby and Filey respectively, together with other cuts for north Yorkshire, which total about £178,000.
When most of my colleagues think of Scarborough and Whitby, they think of going on holiday there. Many of them will be surprised to hear that we have lots of other things to offer. There is a dynamic economy on that coastline. We have an amazingly vital manufacturing sector. Indeed. I have my own factory in Filey, which is not in my constituency—if we built an extension, it would probably he in my constituency. We also have an interesting fishing community and lots of farming. Thirty per cent. of the people who come to live in Scarborough

retire there, so we have a large nursing home industry. We have 45 miles of the most beautiful, craggy, coastal scenery that one could imagine. Tiny villages such as Robin Hood's Bay, Runswick and Staithes shelter in the coves.
Then there is Whitby itself—England's finest and most unique town, surrounded on one side by thousands of square miles of open moorland, which sometimes catches fire, and thousands of square miles of sea on the other. If one sails out of Whitby harbour and looks hack, one does not see much that one's 19th century counterpart would not have seen. The architects of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s have left it alone and it is still very much as it was. Along its ancient streets Tudor, Stuart and Georgian buildings—houses, shops and offices—are all packed tightly together, yet the county council wants to cut the number of fire engines.
In Scarborough, the pattern is repeated and a reliance on tourism is common to both Scarborough and Whitby. In summer, the population of Scarborough swells by 300,000—we have 1.5 million visitor days there every year. Visitors often come via the A64, which is clogged and choked, making rescue work very difficult for the fire services when they are called out.
In Scarborough and Whitby we also have DSS hostels, as we have heard. We should be very concerned about the fire risks in such hostels, as the Richmond hotel shows. The borough council is doing a sterling job within the limited powers that it already has to deal with the problem. We have 560 DSS hostels in Scarborough and Whitby, 86 of which have been inspected by the borough council, but only 17 were found to be satisfactory. Yet the county council wants to cut the number of fire engines in Scarborough and Whitby. We have a large and thriving population and it is a long way from other large and thriving populations.
I represent a coastal constituency. This afternoon, the House will turn its attention to the boundary commission. One of the advantages of having a coastal constituency is that the commission cannot do much with the right-hand side of it, but I suppose that I have lost so much of it to the North sea—including a famous hotel—that one might argue that an altogether higher authority was dealing with my boundaries. I am trying to illustrate a point because, if one lived in Huddersfield, one's house caught fire and the Huddersfield fire brigade was not as quick as it should have been, one would always have Halifax, Wakefield, Barnsley or Bradford to fall back on. According to the map, the nearest fire station in an easterly direction on which we can call is in Hamburg. That is why we need the extra fire stations in Scarborough and Whitby.
That brings me neatly to the question of sparsity because, as everyone knows, Yorkshire is England's biggest county and North Yorkshire county council, England's biggest council. The county has two population centres—York and Scarborough—and, in between, hundreds of tiny villages and hamlets, which stretch the county council's resources to the limit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and I have repeatedly asked the Government to take sparsity into account. I am glad to be able to say that the Minister responded favourably by writing to me in March to say:
The Government accepts that there should be a further review of the fire Standard Spending Assessment formula for 1996–07. The Home Office will be participating with the local authority associations in that review.


I am pleased to hear that news, but the sums involved in these cuts arc paltry in comparison. They amount to £178,000, so why in the name of God does the county council seem so hell bent on pursuing cuts, when it knows that it might be pushing at an open door?
It may be relevant to point out that, in 1994, the public protection committee was faced with the self-same proposals and rejected them. It wrote that
on the grounds of public safety, none of the reductions set out in Item 5 can be accepted and the Finance Sub-Committee be recommended to remove these items from the budget process entirely".
It continued, in defence of the very same retained crews for whom I am trying to fight today, to say that item 13—cutting back on those retained crews—
cannot be accepted because if these appliances are removed the ability to meet attendance times and weight of attack would be seriously jeopardised when the Brigade is engaged in more than one incident at any one time, or when the Brigade is involved at a major incident which requires the mobilisation of many appliances".
The county council rejected those cuts on the ground of public safety in the previous financial year, yet 12 months later—after a disaster of national proportions in my constituency—the same council has stood on its head and changed its mind. It may he relevant to say that an election was held between those times, following which the Conservatives lost control of North Yorkshire county council. That is a matter for conjecture.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on an important subject. People throughout north Yorkshire are concerned about the cuts to the fire service. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Government have reduced the standard spending assessment for the fire service in north Yorkshire this year by £238,000? Does he accept that at the moment the county council spends £2 million more than its fire service SSA, which is the amount that the Government believe should be spent on the fire service?
Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that when the public protection committee considered the loss of the five fire appliances—including the two in his constituency—a proposal was placed before the council by Labour members that the cuts in the fire service should not reduce the number of appliances, but that the cut was voted through by Conservative and Liberal members of the county council?

Mr. Sykes: I do not accept that at all. The hon. Gentleman knows that the county council received a I per cent. increase in funding this year from the Government. He will have heard me say that the Under-Secretary of State has accepted our arguments about the importance of sparsity. I hope that more money will be made available. There has been cross-party support in Scarborough and Whitby for the argument, and no political point scoring has been carried out. I asked for today's debate as a Member of Parliament—not as a Conservative or Labour Member—because I am concerned about the issue.
I shall now address the question of the allocation of resources, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman brought me to that point. It has been suggested that the Government did not give the county council enough money, and that that is the reason why the cuts proved

necessary. The taxpayer subsidises the council to the tune of £290 million a year, with local ratepayers providing an extra £154 million a year.
I regard it as my job as the Member of Parliament for my constituency to try to make sure that we get a fair share of the national cake. I am glad that the Minister has accepted the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and I have put for more resources as a result of sparsity. But it is equally important for the county council to give a good account of its own spending. The council must be able to show that it has its priorities in the right order, and it is self-evident that the fire service is a priority of the first order.
As a business man, I know that a company that needs to make savings must first look at its head office costs and cut any unnecessary overheads. I took a look at North Yorkshire county council, which, for example, owns 13,000 acres of glorious north Yorkshire farmland. Has anyone in the county council asked himself what on earth the council is doing in 1995 owning 13,000 acres of farmland? More importantly, those acres are divided into 154 separate farms, which approximates about 84 acres apiece. That is almost French or German in its inefficiency, with regard to farming.
In business terms, the situation is worse. If the tenanted land was sold, it would raise about £10 million at today's prices, from which the council would receive an income of approximately £830,000 a year. That would be enough to pay for a whole fleet of fire engines year in, year out for every single village in the area.
I campaigned along with other people from Scarborough and Whitby—unsuccessfully, as it turned out—to get North Yorkshire county council to change its mind. The arguments raged backwards and forwards. I have said that the minimum standards are wholly inadequate, and I am sure that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) agrees. I live in Scalby, north of Scarborough. If my chimney caught fire and a fire engine got there within five minutes, that would be all right. But in the meantime, the Grand hotel or the Royal hotel could catch fire and burn to the ground. However, the minimum standards would still have been adhered to.
A document produced by the Audit Commission entitled "In the Line of Fire" addresses the minimum standards problem, and I hope that the Government will look closely at it. The report tells us that the majority of fatalities in fires occur in the category of property that is most predominant in my constituency. Yet we are faced today with applying the minimum standards in my constituency.
Why should we rely on Filey which, while it does very well, is also losing a tender'? It takes 18 minutes to get from Filey to Scarborough—how many houses can burn down in 18 minutes? However, the county council still refuses to budge. Even the council's consultation period was odd. When similar proposals were put forward in 1990, the county council allowed three months to discuss the matter and consult the public. That did not happen this time. On this occasion, we were allowed four weeks for consultation during Christmas and new year, when most of us were at home with our families and most of the shops and businesses were closed. That consultation process was fundamentally flawed.
Whitby and Knaresborough town councils offered to raise the necessary funds themselves to pay for the fire engines, but still North Yorkshire county council refused


to budge. In fact, the council bent over backwards to find a reason not to allow that. The council's reply to Knaresborough town council was that the council should be thanked for its offer
to pay North Yorkshire County Council an annual sum equivalent to the cost of providing and staffing the second fire engine … for operational, legal, financial and administrative reasons, it cannot be accepted.
That is gobbledegook, and the council is saying that it does not want to allow that to happen. We know that where there is a will, there is a way.
In the meantime, unknown to me and to the people of Scarborough and Whitby, the county council asked the fire officer of Scarborough to conduct a review of fire standard cover, which will be published in August. By that time—if the county council has got its way—it could be too late.
Liberal, Labour and Conservative councillors in Scarborough and Whitby and parish councillors have worked together with me to try to stop the arrangement in its tracks. The whole community has risen in support of the retained crews in relation to the threat that they face from Northallerton.
I have worked closely with those retained crews. I have attended fires with them, and spoken to their families. Without exception, every one of them is an honourable and decent person. They arrange their own lives so that they may save other people's lives, and it breaks my heart to see them sacrificed by the county council's brutal determination to throw them on the scrap heap and to score points. The council knows that the Home Office recognises that there may well be a need to put more money on the table in the weeks following this debate.
The council is playing with fire, the consequences of which could be injury or worse, such as another disaster like the one that occurred at the Richmond hotel. Those fire engines did not appear magically from nowhere. They have been there for a long time, and they were provided by the community because the community needed them. The community still needs them, and the community is entitled to be angry when dedicated firemen are chucked on the rubbish heap because the county council prefers to be a farmer, rather than-a fire engine keeper.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): It gives me great pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) on securing this debate on the fire service in Scarborough and Whitby. I understand the concern that he and his constituents feel about the quality of their fire service and that he expressed recently in a meeting with my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State. It is a sign of the seriousness of the issue for those in Scarborough and Whitby that this should be the first Adjournment debate raised by their Member of Parliament so ably and passionately. I extend my sympathy to all the victims of the tragic fire at the Richmond hotel, which he described.
The Government, like the general public, have a high regard for the fire service, its professionalism, the bravery of its firefighters and the quality of the service that it provides. In its recent report on value for money in the fire service, "In the Line of Fire", the Audit Commission noted:

the fire service can be proud of its record in responding to incidents.
My hon. Friend referred to fire safety and in particular to the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. The Department of the Environment published a consultation paper on licensing houses in multiple occupation in November 1994. The responses to the consultation exercise have been considered carefully and the Government expect to publish their decision shortly in the housing White Paper.
My hon. Friend also referred to Government funding of local authorities and standard spending assessments. The local government finance settlement is realistic in the current economic climate, particularly when seen in the context of low inflation and the Government's view that pay increases in the public sector should be met from increased efficiency. It will also ensure that fire authorities contribute fairly to reducing public sector borrowing.
It is inevitable that updating the fire standard spending assessment formula means that some authorities will benefit at the expense of others. Although the fire element of North Yorkshire county council's standard spending assessment fell by 1.8 per cent. this year compared with last year, it benefited in 1994–95 by an increase of 7.2 per cent. However, with the Department of the Environment and the local authority associations, we shall look at the fire standard spending assessment formula again for next year, taking account of pensions, fire safety and other factors—my hon. Friend mentioned population density or sparsity—that the associations may wish to raise.
Before I deal specifically with the fire service in Scarborough and Whitby, it will be helpful if I explain the framework within which decisions about fire cover are taken. It is important to remember that the fire service is a local authority service. That has been the case since the Fire Services Act 1947 transferred firefighting functions from the wartime national fire service.

Mr. Bayley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baker: I apologise, but I do not have time to give way.
Statutory responsibility for providing an effective and efficient fire service to meet all normal requirements rests with the local fire authority. It is for the fire authority—North Yorkshire county council in the case of Scarborough and Whitby—to decide how much of its overall budget to spend on its fire service in order to comply with its statutory responsibilities.
What, then, is the Government's role? My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has various duties under the Fire Services Act 1947: he monitors performance through Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services; he is responsible for promoting high and consistent standards in such matters as training, equipment, promotion and recruitment; and he can require collaboration between brigades and a combination of them if that would be more efficient. I might add that he will exercise those powers of combination to ensure that, from 1 April 1996, a combined fire authority comprising the new unitary council of the City of York and the remainder of North Yorkshire will maintain the existing brigade on its existing boundaries following local government reorganisation.
Under section 19 of the Fire Services Act, my right hon. and learned Friend is required to be notified of the fire authority's establishment—the number of its fire stations, fire appliances and firefighting posts—as at I January each year. It is particularly relevant to this debate that the fire authority may not reduce its establishment—although it can increase it—without his consent.
My right hon. and learned Friend has a specific and limited role in considering applications under section 19. He grants approval where the following conditions are satisfied: first, the proposals must have been sufficiently widely publicised, in sufficient detail and allowing adequate time, to enable any interested party to make representations; secondly, the representations must have been considered by the fire authority; and thirdly, after taking advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services, my right hon. and learned Friend must be satisfied that the nationally recommended standards of fire cover will he maintained.
I emphasise that it is not my right hon. and learned Friend's role to decide whether the proposals that the fire authority puts forward represent the best option for making savings that the authority determines are necessary. Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services is available to advise the authority. Ultimately, however, primary responsibility for fire cover rests with the fire authority, which is accountable in law for the service that it provides.
On standards, the Fire Services Act does not define the test of an effective and efficient fire service, which a fire authority must provide to meet normal requirements for fire cover, but it is longstanding practice to interpret that by reference to the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover. Those standards are not just nationally recommended; they are nationally agreed in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which was established by the 1947 Act and on which the relevant fire service organisations are represented. They were also extensively reviewed by the Joint Committee on Standards of Fire Cover in 1985 for the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland. The standards enable all concerned to know where they stand as regards the minimum level of service that they should deliver. They also largely dictate the resources needed to meet those standards.
A recent Audit Commission report called for greater local flexibility in the application of the fire cover standards, particularly in A and C-risk areas. The commission did not say exactly how the standards should be changed and recognised that no change should be considered without careful research. The issue is being considered by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, but it is a complex matter on which much work will he needed.
Following the 1985 review of standards, all fire authorities in Great Britain reviewed their fire risk categorisation and the resources necessary to comply with the nationally recommended minimum standards. The

authorities update those reviews regularly to take account of local circumstances. Each brigade is also inspected annually by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services. Following the inspection of the North Yorkshire brigade in 1993, Her Majesty's inspectorate recommended in its report that the brigade should give priority to its review of risk categorisation. That was again referred to in the 1994 inspection report as progress had been slower than expected. I understand that much of that work has now been completed and that the results of the full review are to be presented to the inspector during his inspection of the brigade in August. The inspectorate has a specific remit to look at resource allocation and identify under-provision relative to the national standards, and to ensure that any over-provision is identified to assist the fire authority to make informed decisions.
Scarborough is primarily a B-risk category area and there is little likelihood of that increasing to A-risk, the only category higher, which applies to the higher risks found in major city centres. The standard for B-risk areas says that, in normal circumstances, the brigade should be able to provide one pumping appliance to a fire within five minutes of a fire call and a second appliance within eight minutes. Cover is currently provided by two pumping appliances, a turntable ladder and rescue tender staffed by 72 whole-time firefighters and one pumping appliance staffed by 12 retained firefighters.
Whitby is predominantly a C-risk category area. That means that, in normal circumstances, one pumping appliance should he provided within eight to 10 minutes of a fire call. Cover is currently provided by one pumping appliance crewed by 12 whole-time personnel and one pumping appliance staffed by 12 retained firefighters.
North Yorkshire county council applied on 2 March, under section 19 of the 1947 Act, for the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to reduce the establishment of its fire brigade. That included the removal of the pumping appliance staffed by retained firefighters and the 12 retained firefighter posts from Scarborough and from Whitby. My right hon. and learned Friend gave careful consideration to the application, noted that the authority had consulted extensively and considered the representations that had been received. The county council decided that the application should proceed after the representations to it had been considered.
My right hon. and learned Friend also took account of the representations that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and other people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), made to him direct. He also received professional advice that Scarborough and Whitby had been correctly assessed for category of fire risk and that the authority could continue to meet the nationally recommended minimum standards if the reductions in establishment were made.
My right hon. and learned Friend was satisfied that all the criteria for a successful section 19 application had been met. There was, therefore, no justifiable basis for him to reject the county council's application.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

Stratford School

2 pm

Mr. Stephen Timms: I begin this debate about Stratford school by commending the Minister of State, Department for Education on his admirably frank statement last month about the problems at the school. The press notice issued by the Department for Education on 5 May 1995 said:
The most recent report from Ofsted shows that standards of teaching and learning remain poor, that management is inadequate, and that the school has shown no signs of improvement since it was first found to be failing eighteen months ago. This persistent failure to provide an acceptable standard of education cannot be tolerated.
My purpose in initiating the debate is to ask the Minister to spell out a little further his plans for the school and the way in which he envisages the problems he has identified there being resolved. I do not intend to criticise people who work at the school or to add to the problems with which the pupils there must contend.
First, I shall review the history of Stratford school and identify the errors that have led to the current intolerable position. Stratford school is not in my constituency; it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but I was the leader of the council in Newham when it was given permission to opt out, and since then I have followed developments at the school from a distance with mounting dismay.
The application for grant-maintained status at Stratford school arose from Newham council's reorganisation proposals. The pattern of demand for secondary school places in Newham had changed and, by the late 1980s, it was necessary to provide new places for the developing docklands part of the borough. The Department for Education made it clear that it would support the changes that were needed only if the council was to close a school. After a long and difficult exercise in the borough, it was decided that the least bad option was to close Stratford school.
Initially, when the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) was Minister of State, the Government said that they would support that plan. They continued to do so when there was a rather half-hearted application for grant-maintained status on behalf of the school. A ballot of parents in September 1989 rejected opting out, hut in a re-run in March 1990 there was a small majority in favour.
In the summer of 1990, there was a ministerial reshuffle. It was reported widely that the then Prime Minister was anxious that there should be more opt-outs—that the rate of opting out should be increased. The right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) was appointed Minister of State in July 1990. After a few days in the job, he announced that he was minded to support the Stratford opt-out.
As I mentioned, I was leader of the council, and I quickly visited the Minister to explain why the council opposed the application. I argued that it undermined the reorganisation plan that had been painstakingly assembled in co-operation with the Government, although I knew that that consideration alone was unlikely to sway him.
I also drew attention to the specific local problems that dogged the Stratford proposal: the fact that the vast majority of the staff intended to leave if the opt-out went ahead, the fact that the governors objected to the opt-out

and, most alarmingly from my perspective, the unstable collection of irreconcilable factions and personalities that had coalesced to support the Stratford hid. The problems that were likely to arise were crystal clear, and I spelt them out to the Minister then.
Given that the Minister had been sent in to boost the number of opt-outs, he presumably felt that he had a dilemma. He consulted other Conservative party supporters on what he should do, and I know that at least one of them confirmed to him that the warnings that I had sounded were correct. As the council's formal letter of objection put it in May 1990:
the group supporting this proposal has not thought beyond saving the school from closure and does not have any awareness of the responsibilities that running such a school would entail. In such circumstances the lack of viability of this project must be questioned still further.
The council challenged the opt-out at the High Court in December 1990. In an affidavit submitted by officials at the Department for Education, the danger of a staff exodus on opt-out, which subsequently did take place, was freely admitted but, in a striking sentence, the affidavit remarked, "Only time will tell," as indeed it has done.
The Minister knew all about the strife ahead before he allowed the project to proceed. It is a tragedy for the pupils of that school that he subjugated their interests to what he perceived to be his own interests. The life chances of dozens of Newham youngsters have been irreparably damaged as a consequence.
What followed exceeded in awfulness even what had been predicted. The agony of the school was played out night after night on the television news in early 1992.
Race row head is back
announced The Mail on Sunday on 12 January 1992, after the Secretary of State had had to step in after the governors suspended the head, but after that matters became worse.
Appeal by Minister after police are called to crisis-torn school
reported The Daily Telegraph on 8 February 1992.
The school riven by hatred
said The Evening Standard on 12 February 1992.
An object lesson in discord
said The Times on 24 February 1992, and
Savage war of the governors
said The Evening Standard on 25 February 1992.
It is hard to imagine what it must have been like for staff and pupils in the school during that time. In summer 1993, the school achieved the worst examination results in the whole of London, and in November 1993 it was declared a failing school.
I am angry that the Minister's predecessor used the children at that school for what he believed would be the narrow interests of the Conservative party. The impression that that was what that was all about was absurdly emphasised when, after the 1992 general election, Mr. Mark Prisk, the unsuccessful young Conservative candidate for Newham, North-West, was appointed as chair of governors at the school. He apparently had no qualifications for the job or previous connections with the district. He was a presentable young man. It was presumably intimated to him that a grateful party would bear his service in mind at future parliamentary selection conferences.
One cannot help but feel sorry for Mr. Prisk as he struggled to sort out the problems, but the problems required more than ambitious youthful enthusiasm. Mr. Prisk resigned from the governing body last month, but he cannot be blamed for his failure to resolve the problems.
That was one of the most disgraceful episodes in the sorry saga, and it is no way to run our education system. Schools cannot he treated as party political playthings. Young people in Newham have been the victims. That is why I am angry.
However, all that is in the past. The question now is, how can the standards of education being received by the children at Stratford school he improved? I welcome the fresh approach that the Minister has revealed, with the frankness of his statement last month. I am delighted with the progress that is being made with the desperately needed schools in Newham's docklands district, which led to the original closure plan at Stratford. We have been grateful for the efforts of the Minister of State on our behalf. There is real optimism in Newham that those matters are now being dealt with on their merits.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: As my hon. Friend knows, and as the House knows, I represent the part of docklands in Newham, which is three miles long and one mile wide, isolated between the A13 Newham way and the river. We have no secondary school in that district, but there are 12 primary schools. I made representations to the now right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). He wrote to me on 13 December 1990, saying:
Finally, may I say that the decision to accord grant-maintained status to Stratford School took no account whatsoever of what may or may not ultimately be needed in the Docklands development area. The two issues are totally unrelated.
Unfortunately, be did not stick to that, but the two issues are related and I know that the Minister knows so, too.

Mr. Timms: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He points out correctly that the delays in providing much-needed schools in the south of the borough are undoubtedly related to the fact that the closure was not permitted to go ahead.
Last month, the Minister announced that he intended to appoint four new governors to Stratford school, and I had the opportunity to meet one of them on Monday. I hope that that initiative succeeds, but I think that the Minister will understand if I am a little sceptical. Appointing very distinguished additional governors to Stratford school in the past has not solved its problems.
Setting that history aside, I believe the problem now is that the school does not have access to support that would allow its difficulties to be addressed. Stratford was the first school in Newham to be deemed a failing school, but it will not be the last. Serious shortcomings in particular schools have been identified in the past and those problems were addressed by support and advice from the local authority which worked alongside school staff. That approach proved extremely successful in one case that I remember well and the school's achievements improved markedly and rapidly.
However, Stratford does not have access to that sort of support from a local authority or from anywhere else. Sending in extra governors may help—I hope that it

does—but the staff of the school need local support also. It is a reflection on the school's isolation locally that neither my hon. Friends and I nor the local authority know who the governors are. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) tabled a parliamentary question inquiring who the governors were and he was referred to the school. However, the chair of the council's education committee wrote to the school in the middle of last month to ask who the governors were and has not yet received a reply.
Some observers have suggested that the best way to proceed would be for the Department for Education to hand the school back to the local education authority. As pupil places in Newham schools are filled, it is now much less likely that the borough will be able to manage without the teaching capacity of Stratford as it intended to do in 1990. The council is reviewing how it would proceed if the school's status were to change. However, I gather that in law it would not be possible simply to hand the school back to the local authority. I ask the Minister to comment specifically on that point when he responds to the debate.
This appears to leave closure as the only option under Government policy if there is no improvement by autumn. Last month's Government press notice showed that failing schools should improve substantially or close within two years—which, in this case, would be in November this year. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the timetable he has in mind and, if it is, how he envisages negotiating with the local authority on the provision of alternative places for the pupils affected? When will the closure occur? November is not too far away and I suspect that we would need more time to prepare if it were decided that the school should close.
The history of Stratford school is very unhappy. The former Minister of State made an error of judgment. However, it is now in everyone's best interests to resolve uncertainty about the school's future as soon as possible. The standards of education received by the children at Stratford school must be improved as quickly as possible. I believe that all hon. Members share and support those objectives.

Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) on raising the subject of Stratford school. It shows that Newham Members of Parliament hunt in a pack on this and all other issues. The problems in the school do not affect only the Member of Parliament in whose constituency it is located. Stratford school is located in my constituency, although it is not actually in Stratford but in Forest Gate, where I live.
It is somewhat disturbing that, to try to revive its flagging fortunes, the school has begun to put flyers through letter boxes in its locality suggesting that people might like to send their children to the school. That seems a rather unhappy situation, as my hon. Friend said.
My hon. Friends and I enjoyed very good relations with Stratford school, before it was given grant-maintained status. I would like to restore those good relations between the local Members of Parliament and the school. I recently received a letter from Mrs. Snelling, the head teacher at Stratford school, who said that it was a pity that I had not visited the school in four years. I wrote back to her and said that, unfortunately, I had not been invited to visit the


school—I do not visit schools unless I am invited to do so. I suspect that my hon. Friends and I will now be invited to visit the school to have discussions with Mrs. Snelling.
My hon. Friend has put the situation very succinctly. I attended the first meeting with the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), and it was clear from that meeting that the right hon. Member agreed that it would be quite wrong to use an application for GM status as a way of avoiding closure as part of an integrated reorganisation of education. We were worried that there might be a knock-on effect to Sarah Bonnell's and other schools north of the A13 which would be asked by the Government to reduce the number of student places.
It is sometimes very satisfying to get to one's feet in this place and say, "I told you so." This is not one of those occasions. We have told Ministers in the past that we are prepared to sit down and discuss the matter quietly and coherently. We do not want Stratford school to be used as a political football. I hope that the Minister will respond to the overtures by the Newham Members of Parliament in the genuine and sincere manner in which they were offered.

The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) has done everyone, not least the school, a service by raising this subject today and allowing the House to consider it. I welcome the constructive nature of the latter part of his remarks. We all agree that we must be satisfied with the quality of education provided at Stratford school and we must ensure that it will provide pupils with every opportunity for the future. That fact is unarguable.
In that context, I was a little disappointed that the hon. Gentleman devoted the early part of his speech to raking over the ashes of the school's history. He referred to some admittedly very unpleasant conflicts. I cannot see how it will help the school to rehearse those events at this stage, but that is a matter for the hon. Gentleman to decide. There may he many things wrong with the school today, but I do not think that the racial disharmony and conflict between the governors and others to which he referred are among those problems. The governors, the staff and the pupils of Stratford school have put that behind them and they are determined to see the school progress and improve, if that is possible.
As to the criticisms levelled against my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), I remind the House and the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend did not and could not have forced the school to adopt grant-maintained status. The parents at the school voted in favour of grant-maintained status, as the hon. Gentleman admitted, and they did so before my right hon. Friend was appointed as an Education Minister. As Minister, he had to decide between the wishes of the parents as expressed in a ballot and the local authority's plans. My right hon. Friend decided in favour of the parents, which forced the council to rethink its plans.
In that context, I make it clear that schools are not run for the benefit of local authorities; they are run for the benefit of pupils and are accountable to the pupils' parents. The ballot for grant-maintained status provides parents with an opportunity to express their opinions. The

parents of Stratford school decided that their children's educational interests would be best served if the school left the local authority's control. I can appreciate how it would hurt municipal pride if a majority of parents were to take that sort of decision, and it may also reflect badly on the authority; but we can hardly pretend that, at the time, the local authority concerned was a by-word for efficiency and high-quality service, even though for many years it had received more funding per pupil through the local authority finance system than most other local education authorities in England.
I think that the hon. Gentleman implied that all would have been well if the school had remained within the aegis of the local authority. I doubt that. He went on to argue that Stratford school should be returned to the control of the local authority, and I shall return to that point later if I have time. The truth is that other local authority schools in Newham have problems of their own, and one school not far from Stratford has worse GCSE results if one compares the A to G scores. The hon. Gentleman's comment that Stratford probably would not be the last failing school in the area suggests that all is not well even with the schools under the local authority's control. To argue that, if the school had remained with the authority, the general quality of education and other things somehow would have been better is difficult to support with the facts.

Mr. Timms: My point was that, with local authority schools, it has been possible to provide support to help them recover. That has happened in the past, but it has not yet happened at Stratford. We are anxious that it should.

Mr. Forth: It can and will happen. It has already been happening, but has come from sources other than the local authority. Of course, in recognition of their independent status, grant-maintained schools have been given additional money—we will all wait breathlessly until next week to see whether the Labour party will erode that. On this occasion it could be used to purchase support. Support in the education sense cannot come only from local authorities. It can and does increasingly come from other sources and I, for one, welcome that. To suggest that GM schools are cut from all support is not true.
I turn now to the specific questions that the hon. Gentleman asked about the school and its future. He brought to the attention of the House the fact that I have made it clear that the school's current performance is not acceptable. That, I think, is clear to all.
The inspection report two years ago made depressing reading. It may not have been the worst that we have seen, but it was pretty damning. The standards of achievement in a significant number of subjects were unsatisfactory. The curriculum was not well planned or delivered. GCSE results were poor. Provision for bilingual pupils was inadequate. In the view of the inspectors, resources were not used effectively. It is, of course, a disappointment for me and my colleagues and others to hear that said of a GM school. However, for this purpose, the fact that that school is grant-maintained is of no significance whatsoever.
It says a lot, however, for the autonomy of the chief inspector and the independence of the inspection system that such things can and will continue to be said where necessary of schools that are failing their pupils. That


alone is a great advance on the position not that many years ago when no one dared to publish a school inspector's report.
Since June 1994, the Office for Standards in Education has visited the school termly to verify progress or otherwise. Overall, standards have improved little. Limited progress has been made towards implementing the governors' action plan for turning the school around. The last visit still found the quality of teaching deficient in two out of every five lessons. That is not to say that there are no bright spots. There is good work in some subjects. For example, the school won a technology schools initiative grant of £300,000 in 1993. However, overall, there has been little improvement.
The problem that is emerging is that we are finding that all failing schools have in common at least two weaknesses that can be readily identified: the quality of leadership and quality of teaching. In some cases, there can be pupil behaviour problems because misbehaviour can obstruct teaching or a significant pupil absence dimension.
The inspectors at Stratford school found that the pupil behaviour was courteous and polite and that attendance was generally excellent. When the inspectorate writes of poor teaching, it describes teaching that is poorly planned, that does not address the full range of pupil ability in the class, that may not challenge and stretch pupils' ability and that does not record what pupils have learned and use it to plan future teaching.
Poor leadership and management in failing schools mean that senior management is not exercising control over standards or providing the direction and guidance that teaching staff need to improve. On this point, the Ofsted record of its last visit to Stratford makes predictably depressing reading.
The governors and senior managers have not developed a long-term—three to five year—view of the school. The review of the action plan has not clarified the long-term targets to improve the quality of education provided at Stratford School. The governors and senior managers have not taken sufficient notice of the progress made to inform decisions about future strategies.
The hon. Gentleman argued that a GM school does not have the support and resources available to other schools. I have already referred to that point and given my response to it.
I want to come straight to the point that the hon. Gentleman very reasonably made about the new governing body. He said that he had not been provided with a list of governors. In defence of my Department, if I need to defend it, I should say that we cannot maintain up-to-date lists of every governor at the more than 1,000 grant-maintained schools. However, I would equally say that grant-maintained schools should provide lists of governors to anyone who asks for them, especially to a local Member of Parliament.
I take this opportunity to give the names. We are rather proud of the governing body as it stands now and have high expectations for and hopes of it. As parent governors, we have Mrs. Bailey, Mr. Sagoo, Mrs. Hemming, Mr. Christian and Ms Campbell and, as teacher governors, Mr. Heales and Ms Earnshaw. There is also the head teacher herself, Mrs. Anne Snelling, to whom reference has already been made.
As first governors, we have Mr. Umer, Mr. Swallow, Mr. Newman and Mr. Hopper. Four new governors were appointed in May, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. Three of them are additional first governors: Dr. Peter Osborne, former head teacher of Shenfield GM school; Mrs. Joan Greenfield, ex-chief education officer of Hillingdon; and Mrs. Pat Collarbone, head teacher at Haggerston school. I am sure that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), with his educational experience, will be happy to hear those names. I am sure that he shares my confidence that they will contribute to the school's improvement.
In addition, Mr. Paul Lewis, deputy chairman of Tate and Lyle, has been appointed as an additional governor by the Secretary of State, alongside Mrs. Daphne Gould, who continues to serve in that capacity. A governing body of that experience, power and authority will give the school every opportunity of improving in a way that perhaps it was not able to do before.
The remodelled governing body is now chaired by an impressive parent governor, Mrs. Merinda Bailey, who has already, I believe, taken an energetic grip on a difficult task at a most crucial time. I invited Mrs. Bailey and the head teacher, Mrs. Snelling, to see me to discuss the school's future. I made it clear that I expected to see significant signs of improvement in the standards of education by the time of Ofsted's autumn monitoring visit.
After that, there was a full briefing by my officials in the Department and Ofsted for governors at the school, which went over the original inspection report and subsequent monitoring report in some detail, explained the legal framework that governs schools under special measures and outlined the financial framework within which a school in Stratford's position operates.
The answer to the question that the hon. Gentleman very reasonably asked about the time scale is that we will expect the school to have demonstrated a significant improvement in its standards by the latish autumn. If that cannot be demonstrated, we will be faced with a very difficult decision and it is possible—I say no more than that at this stage—that the decision will be made that the school should close.
However, that would only initiate a procedure that would take a considerable time, because closure of a school is a serious business and it would require extensive consultations under the statutory framework and require the local education authority to be brought in. We would have to satisfy ourselves that sufficient places were available to accommodate the pupils displaced if the school were closed and that an acceptable quality of education was provided for them.
The point of the exercise is to identify schools that are failing their pupils and to give them an opportunity to improve the quality of provision. Ultimately, if that cannot be done, it might be a question of closing the school—something that we have not yet had to do—provided that suitable alternative provision can be made within an acceptable time scale. In this case, the process would not be sudden, like falling off a cliff, and the usual consultation would be undertaken.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the school could be returned to the control of Newham council rather than closed. I confirm that the law does not allow that. It would be a rather odd suggestion because, as he said, the council itself originally wanted to close the school. Moreover, in


the current circumstances, I do not think that the authority's record with its schools is such as to inspire enough confidence in us to make us want to rush to return the school to the authority. That is not the route to take.
I firmly believe that the changes that we have made, especially to the governing body, will produce results. Support is on offer, based on the additional moneys available to Stratford grant-maintained school, as to any other. I have made it very clear to the chairman of the governors and the head teacher in particular that significant improvements must be made within a given time scale, because I cannot accept that pupils should continue to he let down by the school as, regrettably, they have been for so long. That combination of factors now gives us real hope that the school can be improved and turned around quickly.
I make it equally clear, however, and confirm that we may have to contemplate closure of the school in the interests of the pupils. We are all agreed that we must be prepared to act in the interests of the pupils and to put all other considerations—disappointment, pride or anything else—behind us. We must face the possibility of closure.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East for bringing this matter to the House's attention. I hope that I have been able to answer his questions and that, with the co-operation of all the local Members of Parliament, we can see something happen to the school which, regrettably, has not happened for many years.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order 119 December].

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Newspaper Carriage Charges

Mr. Spellar: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with representatives of newsagents regarding carriage charges by wholesalers. [26803]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): My officials met representatives of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents on 8 June regarding recent increases in wholesalers' carriage charges.

Mr. Spellar: I am sorry that the Minister is not able to be more forthcoming about the welcome meeting that he held with newsagents. Does he accept their enormous importance to the thousands of shopping parades across the country? Does he also accept that the recent dramatic increase in carriage charges is crippling many newsagents? Are not the magazine and newspaper publishers trying to recoup the cost of the price war by trying to extract more profit from newsagents? What exactly does the Minister intend to do about that?

Mr. Evans: There is not a Member of the House who does not recognise the important role played by small newsagents in every constituency. I have spoken to representatives of the profession in my constituency about the current difficulties caused by carriage charges. However, the hon. Gentleman ought to know that the Director General of Fair Trading has a responsibility placed on him by the Fair Trading Act 1973 to keep these matters under constant review. I have ensured that the director general is fully apprised of all the concerns outlined by representatives of the industry and by Members of Parliament.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Minister has just said. Will he confirm that the Office of Fair Trading should monitor the charges? Does he accept that, since the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1993 and the changes in distribution arrangements mentioned by the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), there has been not just a considerable increase but in some cases charges have doubled or even quadrupled, putting the survival of many newsagents on the line?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is widespread concern about carnage charges. I am bound to say that it is not in the interests of the publishers to see small newsagents in such difficulties because it is retail newsagents who are responsible for fixed deliveries and it is fixed deliveries which set the advertising rates that publishers are able to charge. In those circumstances, the entire industry has a responsibility to ensure that the problem is dealt with. I am aware that discussions are taking place between the National Federation of Retail Newsagents and publishers with a view to resolving the problem.

Mr. Bell: It took a question from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to puncture the Minister's complacency. The Minister should be aware

that small newsagents are going to the wall. Many are going bankrupt because of the changes to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is not good enough for the Minister merely to say that he has met newsagents or to refer to the Office of Fair Trading. If there has been one report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, should there not be another?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman should know that delivery mechanisms were the subject of the MMC inquiry in 1993. On that occasion, there were no adverse findings. I am well aware of the concerns raised recently as to whether the position has been changed by the events outlined in representations to hon. Members and to me. As the hon. Gentleman has had so much to say about the operation of competition policy, he should know that a responsibility is placed upon the Director General of Fair Trading to keep matters under review and all those representations have been drawn to his attention. I have no doubt that he will also be receiving representations from the hon. Gentleman, given the force of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend accept that certain parts of the country such as my constituency and the north-west have been particularly badly affected by the problem? The National Federation of Retail Newsagents has drawn attention to particular difficulties in the north-west. In addition to his helpful comments this afternoon, will my hon. Friend ensure that the Director General of Fair Trading is made fully aware of the particular problems faced by newsagents in the north-west and in constituencies such as mine in that regard?

Mr. Evans: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. For the benefit of the considerable number of hon. Members who have written to me, I should couple with that assurance the information that, as I have made clear in my responses, full details of the concerns outlined have been passed to the Director General of Fair Trading. In my judgment, publishers and wholesalers must recognise the particular role of retail newsagents. I am at least reassured by the information that discussions within the industry are now taking place. It is a complex industry and in the circumstances all the relevant parts of the industry are interdependent and interrelated. Further discussions between relevant parts of the industry cannot come too soon.

Indonesia

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions are placed on trade with Indonesia. [26804]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): Trade with Indonesia is subject to the normal requirements of United Kingdom law. There is no European Union or United Nations embargo on arms trade with Indonesia.

Mr. Corbyn: Despite the lack of an embargo by anyone else, does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on the British Government to recognise that the illegal occupation of East Timor has led to the deaths of up to 200,000 East Timorese people, that young East Timorese are being sentenced to up to three years' imprisonment for taking part in peaceful demonstrations and that journalists in Jakarta and other cities who attempt to


expose the facts are being given prison sentences merely for trying to speak the truth? Should not the British Government stand up against such a monstrous regime and put a total embargo on all arms sales to that country?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has made allegations in relation to East Timor which are not upheld in United Nations policies. Although the United Kingdom has not recognised the annexation of East Timor, we are relying on dialogue which is continuing at the moment under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party which, like the Conservative party, supports the activities of the United Nations. Why, therefore, does he not observe the rules and regulations that the United Nations itself observes? There are no United Nations embargoes on arms sales to Indonesia. That is recognised internationally and it is recognised by the Government in dealing with any export licence applications.

Mr. Nicholls: Is it not interesting that Labour Members were prepared to junket around the former Soviet satellites in eastern Europe without mentioning anything about illegal occupation or the abuse of human rights which occurred there on a vastly greater scale than anything in Indonesia, yet they are prepared to malign and traduce a country that most of them could not find on a map if they were asked to do so?

Mr. Taylor: I should not like to comment on the geographical knowledge of Labour Members, but the abuse of human rights anywhere in the world is appalling and one cannot be selective about it, as the Labour party attempts to be, as between those friends whom they cuddle up to and those they do not.

Mrs. Clwyd: If the Minister is found to be at fault in his judgment that the Indonesian Government will not use equipment exported from Britain with licences granted by his Department, will there be a resignation in the Department?

Mr. Taylor: I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Lady's question, given that the Labour party is in favour of selling arms. If the Opposition are not in favour of selling arms, that would make for an interesting statement by a Front-Bench spokesman as it would threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country.
The Government's attitude is to take careful note of the situation in any country to which we are selling arms, and of any undertakings given by the Government of that country. In the event of a change, the position on export licences would immediately be put under review.

East Midlands (Exports)

Mr. Garnier: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what his Department is doing to promote exports from the east midlands. [26805]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): My Department provides an increasingly comprehensive range of services to all sectors of industry in the east midlands. The improved services are delivered more and more through the rapidly expanding network of business links.

Mr. Garnier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the business link office in Market Harborough, which has been up and running since January, has already achieved great things for exporters in the east midlands? Would he care to

comment on co-operation between his Department and the Foreign Office to achieve even greater exports, not just from my constituency but from the whole country?

Mr. Needham: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the success of the business links and to the Government's export strategy. We recently announced in the competitiveness White Paper that we shall have 30,000 more companies exporting by the year 2000. We are finding £40 million worth of additional funding; we are holding more exhibitions and conducting more missions; there are more posts and more professional, better trained staff. We have more business links, more co-operation between business and Government, more information technology and more exports. The only thing that could possibly ruin it all would be the Labour party.

Mr. Tipping: Is the Minister aware of the participation today of civic leaders from the east midlands in promoting their document, "Give Us A Sporting Chance"? Will he look closely at that document, which sets out a number of recommendations for promoting the textile and clothing industry, especially its desire to export more?

Mr. Needham: Of course.

Privatised Utilities

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the changes in productivity achieved in the privatised utilities since privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [26806]

The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Generally, the privatised utilities have demonstrated higher productivity increases than those of manufacturing industry as a whole. The productivity performance of the electricity industry and of BT is particularly impressive. In terms of annual averages between privatisation and 1993–94, the regional electricity companies' productivity was up 6 per cent., BT's up 7 per cent., PowerGen's up 15.5 per cent., and National Power's was up by nearly 21 per cent.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that no one has questioned Cedric Brown, lain Valiance and company harder than I have about their salaries and emoluments? Does not the fact that footballers are being paid £15,000 a week put the envy expressed by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats into perspective? The reductions in the price of gas, telephone calls and electricity are what matters—not the sneering, envy and meanness expressed by the Opposition.

Mr. Eggar: As usual, my hon. Friend makes his point powerfully and effectively. BT's prices for domestic consumers have fallen in real terms by 35 per cent. since privatisation. Gas prices for domestic consumers are down in real terms by 21 per cent. Electricity prices have fallen by 8.5 per cent. over two years. Gas prices for industry are down by almost 40 per cent. in real terms, and in recent weeks there has been a fall of no less than 20 per cent. in interruptible gas prices, over and above last year. That is a record of which the privatised industries can rightly be proud.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that the privatised utilities are obsessed with getting rid of jobs and employees in order to make a profit? Last year, when


BT's system was affected by thunderstorms, the company did not have enough workers to get the system working again and had to bring in engineers from the Republic of Ireland. Is that not nonsensical?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman lives in another era. He forgets the time when there was a waiting list for telephones and there was only one kind to be had—a big black one. During that period there was nothing like the number of telephones in houses compared with nowadays and the standard of efficiency was unbelievable compared with the present high standard. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should assess the evidence objectively.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Although the Labour party does not want to acknowledge it, an amazing number of privatised industries have become international leaders in their sectors, setting the pace in profits, productivity and growth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the position with British Airways, British Steel, British Gas and British Telecom, and is that not the finest vindication of the correctness of Conservative privatisation policies?

Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Anyone who has seen, as I have, British Gas operating in Argentina or Kazakhstan will recognise the major contribution that British Gas is making to economic growth in those countries and in bringing profits back to the United Kingdom. We must recognise that the sale of services by utilities in the energy and telecommunications sectors is a worldwide effort, not a domestic effort within the United Kingdom. Our former state-owned utilities are leading the way for Britain. That means good profits and jobs for Britain.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that the ability of directors of former public utilities to earn football players' wages, or to win them, is not related to their ability to score own goals? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on today's statement by the Centre for Regulated Industry that profits of £4,553 million were made in 1993–94 in the former public utility sector? Indeed, profits rose by about 14.3 per cent. What does the right hon. Gentleman suggest should be done to give some consolation to the consumers of electricity, for example? Does he agree that the regulator should give greater countenance and support to the other stakeholders—the consumers? A 14.3 per cent. rise in profits is nothing compared with price controls. Surely the regulator should be defending the consumers rather than the shareholders.

Mr. Eggar: Even by the hon. Gentleman's standards, that was a particularly churlish question. The benefits of privatisation have flowed through directly to consumers in lower prices in virtually all the privatised industries, and in higher standards of performance and service to consumers. The hon. Gentleman and the newspapers seem to have ignored the fact that the statement made by the centre that he mentioned referred to results for the year before last.

Export Trends

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's latest estimate of the trend in exports in 1995. [26807]

Mr. Needham: The outlook for exports in 1995 is excellent. The Confederation of British Industry reports

that export orders are growing faster than ever before and that optimism among exporters is at its highest for a generation.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Does he agree that while past economic recoveries have been based on increased consumption leading to a balance of payments crisis, the present recovery is based on increased exports, which means that we can look forward to several years of sustained economic growth?

Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. At Question Time two years ago, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) constantly told the House that as we came out of recession into recovery our export position would get ever worse and the deficit would become ever greater. Perhaps that is why the Leader of the Opposition was sensible enough to move him to another shadow position. We are going through one of the greatest export booms of the century, which will bring untold benefits for the British people. Provided that the Conservative Government stay in office, there is no conceivable reason why that should not continue.

Mr. McAvoy: The Minister will be aware that Hoover Floorcare in my constituency is the only floor care manufacturer in Hoover Europe. He will also recognise Hoover Floorcare's record of exports to Europe. Bearing in mind the fact that the Italian company, Candy, has made a takeover bid for Hoover's European interests and that the bid, if successful, would represent a fresh and, I hope, new start for Hoover employees in the United Kingdom, will the Minister give an assurance that despite the remits of the Welsh and Scottish Offices in the takeover bid, his Department will encourage the bid to give fresh hope to Hoover employees?

Mr. Needham: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says, although he gave me no warning of his question. It is interesting that in this case he wants to see a takeover go ahead when his colleagues are so often against takeovers. The real question that he should address is whether the balance of British manufacturing is becoming more world competitive and improving the opportunities for Britain. In 1979, for example, machinery and transport equipment accounted for 34 per cent. of exports. Now it is 41 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Here we go."] Here we go, indeed—it is a success story for British manufacturing and the Opposition should support the Government and industry on that.

Industrial Job Creation

Mr. Riddick: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to encourage job creation in the industrial sector. [26808]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): Jobs are dependent on the competitiveness of the wealth-creating sector. The steps that the Government are taking to promote competitiveness are set out in the recent White Paper, "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead".
The success of our policies is clear. Unemployment fell further today—the 21st fall in a row. Nearly two thirds of a million people have left the register since December 1992, total employment has risen substantially over the past year and manufacturing employment is up by 31,000.

Mr. Riddick: Will my hon. Friend welcome the fact that in May unemployment fell not only throughout the country but in Colne Valley? Is he aware that manufacturing industry is extremely important in and around my constituency and that the key factor in increasing employment in the industrial sector is to maintain and improve competitiveness? Towards that end, will he confirm that the Government will have nothing whatever to do with Labour's twin job destroyers, the social chapter and a national minimum wage?

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend makes the point about the social chapter in a powerful and sensible fashion. Unemployment in the United Kingdom has fallen over the years, thanks not only to the Government but to the Prime Minister in obtaining the opt-out from the social chapter. My hon. Friend and the House may be interested to know that in the United Kingdom since 1993 unemployment has fallen from 10.3 per cent. to 8.6 per cent. while in the European Union it has risen from 10.7 per cent. to 11 per cent., in France it has risen from 11.7 per cent. to 12.2 per cent., and in Germany it has risen from 6.1 per cent. to 6.8 per cent. It is a matter of amazement to me that the Labour party wishes to embrace the social chapter and throw hundreds of thousands of workers on to the scrap heap.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for that lesson in what happens to those who are not party to the exchange rate mechanism. What message does he have for the railway manufacturing industry in this country, which is increasingly being forced into bankruptcy, not because it is not capable of producing jobs and manufactured goods but because the Government, in the total chaos of railway privatisation, have left it with empty order books and a large number of jobs at risk?

Mr. Page: As the hon. Lady knows, the matter of placing orders for the railway industry is the responsibility of British Rail and not the Government. Whenever Governments have tried to interfere in the purchasing process, they have usually made a complete and utter mess of it. I need only cite the National Enterprise Board and the chaos and confusion when the Labour Government tried to run various bits of the industry.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most impressive examples of job creation is in Hinckley, in my constituency, where the motor cycle plant is exporting 10,000 motor cycles a year? Is he aware that Triumph is No. 2 in the league in Great Britain and expects to increase its exports by 60 per cent. next year?

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend tells us a success story. It is an amazing fact that Opposition Members always try to condemn success stories. I am surprised that they do not talk more about the success of the Invest in Britain Bureau. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), for example, is delighted that Black and Decker has brought 300 jobs to his constituency, and no doubt the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) is happy that CMC has brought 550 jobs to his constituency. I look across the Chamber

and see the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), to whose constituency the Koyo Bearings factory, which I visited the other day, has brought an extra 200 jobs. Then I look at the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), in whose constituency Bristol-Myers Squibb has created 161 jobs. I could go on for hours with the list of successes whereby in the years since 1979 a total of 700,000 extra jobs have been brought to this country. That is a success story.

Political Donations

Mr. Chisholm: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will amend the Companies Act 1985 to ensure that information on political donations given by companies is made available to customers of the privatised utilities. [26809]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I have no such plans. Customers of privatised utilities can readily obtain information on any political donations through disclosure in the companies' annual reports.

Mr. Chisholm: Why should shareholders in privatised utilities be told about political donations when customers, who have to foot the bill, are not? As the Conservative party has sanctioned the windfall profits and share option bonanzas of the utilities, surely the public should be told which companies have returned the favour.

Mr. Evans: In a sense the question is disingenuous, because when information on a company's political donations is disclosed in its annual report it is invariably disseminated in the newspapers. Furthermore, I note that the hon. Gentleman is the only one of the top 10 Labour Members in the draw to ask questions who is not sponsored by the co-operative or trade union movement—unlike the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who is sponsored by the GMB. Mr. John Edmonds of the GMB has said that he intends to challenge political donations: he apparently believes that they are unlawful because they do not buy political influence—unlike donations to the Labour party.

Mr. Jessel: Is not the word "utility" misleading, in that it seems to imply that if something has come along a pipe or a wire it must be more useful than a physical article or object bought in a shop? Is that not a nonsensical distinction? Why should someone who has bought a fluid or a gas which has come along a pipe be privy to more information than someone who has bought a physical object in a shop?

Mr. Evans: My esteemed and honourable Friend highlights the fact that what is important is the efficiency of the service delivered.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: How does the Minister justify the fact that utilities such as Thames Water can give £50,000 to the Conservative party by taking the money from senior citizens such as Thomas Monaghan, a military cross holder, who was charged £193 for the changing of a washer? Will the Minister hold an inquiry into that scandal and ensure that Mr. Monaghan and others know that money is being taken away from them to give to the Conservative party?

Mr. Evans: As the hon. Gentleman seems to have no difficulty in finding out what political donations particular


companies make, why does he want to place a charge on every customer of every privatised utility by requiring the information to be sent to them?

Deregulation Initiatives

Mr. Spring: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the importance of deregulation initiatives in increasing the competitiveness of industry in the United Kingdom. [26810]

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): As we made clear in our second White Paper on competitiveness, deregulation is central to improving United Kingdom competitiveness. Unnecessary requirements stand in the way of market entry, innovation, investment and jobs. We have a programme of repealing or amending more than 1,000 regulations and we are on target to deliver nearly 500 by the end of the year. We are also taking action to ensure that regulations are enforced in a business-friendly way.

Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the immense frustration in commerce and industry caused by the over-zealous application of red tape and regulations? In view of his considerable success in setting up one-stop shops, does he envisage the provision of specific help in providing advice and expediting the appeals procedures, which would be a great morale boost for the business sector?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a most important matter. We are exploring the opportunity to improve the appeals mechanism and, with the business links, we are exploring the possibility of introducing a single point of access to information about the regulatory system.

Dr. John Cunningham: If the right hon. Gentleman's ideas and policies are so effective, why is it that, under the Conservatives, Britain has fallen to the bottom of the league of Group of Seven—the largest industrial economies in the world? As he is talking about competitiveness and always lauds privatisation, how does he explain that, in the past five years, increases in British Gas's productivity have averaged only 0.42 per cent. but that, at the same time, increases in the chief executive's salary have averaged 27 per cent.? How does he reconcile those things?

Mr. Heseltine: What the right hon. Gentleman fails to point out is the reduction in prices that have taken place over that period as a result of the improved management that has been brought to that industry. Consumers have gained—that should be attractive to Labour Members.

Sir Peter Hordern: On the question of deregulation, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is increasing evidence that when directives issued from Brussels are translated into statutory instruments, they become far more comprehensive, and that such directives are given different interpretations in different countries in the European Union? Will he therefore consider appointing an independent commission to consider carefully the way in which those directives are interpreted not only in this country, but in other EU countries?

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend raises an important issue. We addressed precisely that dimension of the European single market implementation programme

when we invited Lord Sainsbury to set up task forces to consider our implementation of the directives. I am pleased to give the House an assurance that, if any evidence of over-zealous implementation were put before me, I would consider it most carefully.

Competition Law

Mr. Cousins: To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent United Kingdom competition law is in accordance with the terms of articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome; and if he will make a statement. [26811]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Articles 85 and 86 apply to agreements and practices that may affect trade between member states. Member states are free to apply national competition law within their own jurisdiction. UK competition law is different in approach from EC law but both share similar objectives in seeking to ensure that competition operates effectively throughout the economy.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister not know that this country has no law outlawing fixed markets and cosy cartels, even when factories lie idle? We have no better example of that than Tyneside's Swan Hunter shipyard, which is virtually closed. No British company wanted to touch it. A Dutch company has bought it and its other north-eastern operation has been sold to another Dutch company. We have two new enterprises in our region. That is an example of real competition. When will the Minister crack open the cartels, under which far too much of British industry shelters?

Mr. Evans: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not begin his remarks by welcoming the news on Swan Hunter. That news has been welcomed on Tyneside and, at least, by Conservative Members. On his criticisms concerning the operation of domestic competition policy, the Government have made it clear that we are committed to legislate to improve the operation of the law on restrictive trade practices. It would be right to say, however, that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 introduced a number of changes which the Government had announced at the end of the consultation in 1993, and of which the Director General of Fair Trading is now taking advantage.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that some countries in Europe are still in breach of those regulations? For example, France continues to subsidise Air France and Spain continues to subsidise Iberia. Is he aware that France-Télécom and the Bundespost still operate non-tariff trade barriers? Does he agree that Britain, with its veto, still has a strong bargaining card in the courts of Europe and that the Labour party would throw away that veto and any influence that we have in Europe?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology continually battles in Europe on the matters that my hon. Friend outlined. We could seek no better champion.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: A moment ago, the Minister spoke about the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Bryan Carsberg. Does he agree with Sir Bryan that Britain was in the lead in competition policy in the mid-1970s but has now fallen behind?

Mr. Evans: No, I do not agree with the views of Sir Bryan, who subsequently left as director general.


Mr. Geoffrey Preston currently operates in that function. Sir Bryan has argued that there should be a diminished role for Ministers in terms of the operation of competition policy. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman subscribes to that view but it would not command universal support in the House.

Directors' Fees and Dividends

Mr. David Evans: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to limit the ability of companies to set directors' fees and dividends. [26812]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Directors' salaries and remuneration packages are matters for individual companies and their shareholders. It is not the Government's policy to intervene in such decisions.

Mr. David Evans: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his reply. The lot opposite want to introduce the social chapter and a minimum wage and want to control directors' pay. Is that not a way of having a pay policy, a policy which failed so miserably in the late 1970s? Does my hon. Friend think that it is a bit rich that the leader of that lot opposite accepts £79,000 from three LWT directors who earned their fortunes from share option schemes? He got the leadership and his pay went up by 125 per cent. Is that the new caring, sharing Labour party, with one rule for them and one rule for us?

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I share my hon. Friend's views but I bemoan the fact that I do not possess his eloquence in putting them forward.

Mr. Harvey: In the context of the monopoly utilities, is it not the case that setting top pay on the basis of profits and share price gives top executives a direct incentive to charge the maximum price that the regulator will allow? Until those industries become fully competitive, would it not be better for shareholders to approve pay packages on the basis of a broader measure of performance which would include customer satisfaction, lower prices and environmental protection, to name but three? Will the Government consider bringing, in an index of those wider measures, which customers could look at, perhaps as part of the citizens charter initiative?

Mr. Evans: I do not think that there is a role for Government in operating the sort of function outlined by the hon. Gentleman. The Government have always made it clear that salaries and remuneration are matters for shareholders. That was my original reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Dover: Does the Minister agree that such matters are far better left to the directors of a company? Does he also agree that, under the Cadbury code, it is for the remuneration committee to see to matters such as directors' fees and top executives' salaries?

Mr. Evans: It seems that that view is shared not only by many Conservative Members but, according to the Financial Times, by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who apparently recently met Sir Richard Greenbury and Mr. Tim Melville-Ross of the Institute of Directors and assured them that Labour's new buzz words were co-operation, partnership and consensus and that its guiding principle will be minimalist intervention.

Ms Eagle: The Minister's statements on this matter are contradicted by the Prime Minister, who said that he would be willing to think about legislation if those excesses carried on and if Greenbury recommended it. Does the Minister realise that he is putting his career at risk by disagreeing with his own Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for showing such concern about my ministerial career. I shall outline the Government's policy in relation to Greenbury, which is quite clear. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that he will await the Greenbury committee's recommendations and that the Government are ready to consider any proposals that Sir Richard Greenbury thinks may need legislative back-up.

Review of Public Expenditure

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade who in his Department is responsible for the Government's fundamental review of public expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [26813]

Mr. Heseltine: I am. All aspects of the Department's expenditure are reviewed annually.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to hear that my right hon. Friend is in charge of the fundamental review of public expenditure in his Department. That is not the case in some Departments, which have left officials in charge of this important task. Does he agree that the recovery in the economy and the export boom that we are enjoying are the results of our firm control of public expenditure? That is in contrast to the Labour party, whose every word shows that it would increase public expenditure and taxation and put the recovery at risk.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. I am amazed that he did not add the social chapter and the minimum wage to the catalogue of disasters that a Labour Government would herald for this country.

Dr. John Cunningham: On the matter of public expenditure, what are the President's relations these days with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is responsible for scrutinising public expenditure? Yesterday, the President effectively announced two inquiries—neither of them independent, I regret to say. The first is to be carried out by Customs and Excise. He encouraged the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to embark on the other, by saying that his Department would co-operate in any such inquiry. As those inquiries will implicate his right hon. Friend in the shambles and fiasco over BMARC, how can the President maintain a sensible working relationship with him?

Mr. Heseltine: I deeply regret that the right hon. Gentleman made that intervention. If he looks carefully at the words that he has used, he will find that he has no grounds on which to base what he has just said. My relationship with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is as good and as excellent now as it has always been.

Mr. Congdon: Given that the most successful economies are low-tax economies, will my right hon. Friend do everything that he can to reduce public expenditure?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Maintenance of the continued improvement in the economic fortunes of our country is certainly high on the Government's list of priorities, and that requires tight control of public expenditure.

Business Links

Mr. Purchase: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent consideration he has made of the financing of business links; and if he will make a statement. [26814]

Mr. Heseltine: Business links have been assured of on-going funding from my Department for the delivery of counselling and business support services. They are also financed by partner contributions and by charging for services. Last months's competitiveness White Paper confirmed the Government's intention to fund the development of business links for a three-year period. Beyond that, the Government will continue to contribute funding to business link services on a three-year rolling programme, subject to evaluation.

Mr. Purchase: Is the President aware that a recent article in the Financial Times suggested that the funding for business links was not as secure as we have been led to believe? The President knows that there is all-party support for the concept and work of business links. Indeed, in my authority, a steering committee is ready to move forward to set up business links, a move about which I am very pleased. Can I take a message back to my authority that the funding for business links is assured and that it can look forward to increased prosperity as a result?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking the matter with the seriousness that it deserves. To qualify for the franchise, business links have to put forward a business plan, for which they are responsible, for appropriate national examination. That includes a business plan of how they are to fund their activities, taking into account the support which the Government will provide and their ability to raise funds from other sources, including charges. That is the responsibility of individual business links. We have given a commitment to an on-going three-year programme and, beyond that, to fund the specific services that the Government have suggested, such as technology counsellors and export and design advisers.

Mr. Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answers will be very welcome to the small business community in my constituency? Will he see to it that his words are widely publicised in such groups as the Carshalton and Wallington business group and others which are committed to the contribution that small businesses can make, especially to new employment?

Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. The fact is that 103 business links are now open in 39 areas and outline plans for another 142 have been approved in a further 30 areas. I have every confidence that the target that we set of 200 business links by the end of the year will he achieved.

Payment of Bills

Mr. Cummings: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the amount of money owed

by his Department to suppliers in 1993 and 1994 which remained unpaid after 30 days from the presentation of invoice. [26815]

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Department does not keep estimates of amounts outstanding. The percentage of invoices paid, within either 30 days or the agreed credit period, was 90 per cent. in 1993–94. On more rigorous Treasury guidelines, the figure for 1994–95 was 84 per cent. The target for 1995–96 is 95 per cent. and payment procedures are being improved, where necessary, to achieve this.

Mr. Cummings: That was a rather disappointing reply. Does the Minister agree with the former consumer affairs Minister, Baroness Denton, that when goods are supplied and not paid for, it is basically theft? Does he also agree with the colleague who stated in a Department of Trade and Industry press release that people who are owed money should contact the chairmen of the respective offending companies, even at home, and go along and collect the money? If that is the case, can we look forward to the Minister's home number being made public?

Mr. Taylor: If it helps the hon. Gentleman, he can have my Internet number as well. The Department did not do very well in 1994–95. We need to pull up our socks, which is what I said in my answer. We are targeting 95 per cent. payment and have put the systems in place. In a recent meeting with the CBI in the north-east, we learnt that it was aware that some of the targets that we had set ourselves in the competitiveness White Paper were extremely welcome. The CBI is working on further information. The question whether the law should come into it is highly contested, even among smaller businesses. We have to find a way to shame people into making payments. The Government do not want to be shamed and will, therefore, be a good payer.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is not late payment of invoices one of the prime causes of the failure of small businesses? Is it not welcome that the Department recognises the importance of the DTI setting a lead in the matter? Can the Minister move his target onward to 99 or 100 per cent. at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Taylor: Targets are set and then need to be beaten. I agree with my hon. Friend that, if one sets a target of 95 per cent. and achieves it, one then needs to do better. The problem of late payment is complicated. Many surveys show that too many companies rely on trade credit, so the question is one of the overall financing of many of our companies rather than of late payment, which is often due to the failure to agree clear contractual terms between two commercial parties. Government Departments must set an example and do better and the targets set by the DTI should be emulated throughout Government.

National Consumer Council

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further discussions he has had with the National Consumer Council of the impact on the service that it provides of the reduction in its budget since 1993. [26817]

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further discussions his Department


has had with the National Consumer Council on the reduction in its service following his budget cuts. [26818]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: My Department is in frequent contact with the National Consumer Council and has regular discussions on all issues of mutual interest, including the council's work programme and budget.

Mr. Jones: Does the Minister think that, by cutting the budget of the National Consumer Council, he will stifle its criticisms of the Government's policy? What message does he think that that will give to British consumers?

Mr. Evans: I do not believe that. The purpose of the decision made in 1993 to reduce funding by about 25 per cent. in three years is to help the National Consumer Council to develop a more focused approach to its work. The hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that, until that time, the council had had an 80 per cent. real terms increase in its grant. In the changing circumstances, the time had clearly arrived for a more focused approach on its part. I am pleased to see that that is being adopted.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister referred to the ups and downs of the financing of the National Consumer Council. Is he aware, for example, that in that more focused approach to which he referred, housing and education matters have been dropped from the council's inspections? Does he think that that is a retrograde step? If the Government's finances get better, will he commit himself to restoring the funds cut from its budget?

Mr. Evans: The Government are committed to assisting the National Consumer Council to develop a focused approach. I said earlier that the announcement made in 1993 followed a period in which the amount of grant made available increased by 80 per cent. in real terms. Ninety-one per cent. of the spending of the NCC is grant in aid from the Government, and it is our view that an additional proportion of funding could come from other sources. That is another part of the approach that the Government have adopted. In developing negotiations with the NCC, the Government announced an additional grant of £291,897 at the end of last year to ease the process of transition.

West Midlands

Mr. Turner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many manufacturing companies existed in the west midlands in 1979; and how many of these were trading in 1993. [26819]

Mr. Page: VAT-registered businesses in the production sector, which includes manufacturing, mining, quarrying and public utilities in the west midlands region, increased from 14,445 in 1979 to 17,579 at the end of 1993.

Mr. Turner: How does the volume of output in 1979 compare with that in 1993, and what was the value of that output? May I remind the Minister that, between 1980 and 1983, we saw the destruction of manufacturing industry in the west midlands, when one third of capacity was lost? That was due to the calamitous policies of Lord Howe, who should be tried for industrial treason.

Mr. Page: There is no doubt that the productivity, output and exports of this country are all increasing. It is all good news, and the only thing that is going down is unemployment. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman

did not refer to the fact that his constituency was changed from intermediate to assisted area status in 1993. Regional selective assistance produced some £6.5 million, leading to £65 million being invested in his area. Companies such as Sun Valley Foods, Canon Processing Equipment and Bilstone and Battersea Enamels are all creating and safeguarding more than 1,000 jobs in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Why is he not grateful?

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Engineering Employers Federation has issued figures which show that £160 billion worth of goods have been sold by the engineering industry in the past year, that exports since 1980 have doubled and that manufacturing output is at a near-record level for the engineering industry? Do not those statistics compare significantly with the efforts of the previous Labour Government, when manufacturing output fell?

Mr. Page: I can only agree with my hon. Friend. It is significant that the amount of employment in manufacturing has gone up by 31,000 in the past year. It is interesting to note that unemployment in the west midlands is now 8.4 per cent. That is lower than the national average, and it is dropping quicker than the national average.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Andrew Faulds.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Faulds: Louder, louder!
Some of my older colleagues—there are a few left—may remember that when Baroness Thatcher first stood at that Dispatch Box in 1979, I warned that she would create of Britain a disaster area. Where could that be truer than in the west midlands?

Mr. Page: Unfortunately, while the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric is strong, his facts are remarkably weak.

Utility Standing Charges

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will initiate a full investigation into the standing charges on domestic gas, electricity and telephone accounts; and if he will make a statement. [26823]

Mr. Page: Standing charges are a matter for the utilities and their regulators.

Mr. O'Brien: Because of the evidence now available that the abolition of standing charges will reduce the average domestic gas bill by 3 per cent. and the average electricity bill by 6 per cent., and given that many pensioners and people on low incomes would welcome a reduction in their bills after the imposition of VAT last year, will the Minister influence the regulators to justify, qualify and investigate standing charges for all the utilities—electricity, gas, water and telephones?

Mr. Page: While the hon. Gentleman makes his point, I must draw to the House's attention the fact that standing charges are a fair way to recover fixed charges such as meter readings, administration and emergency services. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have already pointed out, consumers can take comfort from the fact that gas


prices have fallen in real terms by 23 per cent., BT's main prices have fallen by 35 per cent. and electricity prices have fallen by 8.5 per cent. That is real help to the consumer.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question whether I would be prepared to influence the regulators is: absolutely not. The regulators' independence is their strength.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that standing charges have fallen, as a number of companies have announced reductions? Will he confirm that there is nothing new about standing charges, which have been around since before 1979? The Opposition say that they should be abolished. Their hypocrisy is there for everyone to see.

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend is right. Since 1993, MANWEB has abolished its standing charges. While the future players in the gas market have not yet revealed their strategies, I have no doubt that they will consider reducing or abolishing standing charges once the Gas Bill is enacted.

Sizewell B

Mr. Skinner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total cost to public funds, including the costs of the public inquiry, for the construction of Sizewell B. [26824]

Mr. Page: Sizewell B has cost about £2.5 billion to construct. The costs of the public inquiry completed in 1985 and attributed to the then Department of Energy, or recoverable from the Central Electricity Generating Board, totalled some £2.5 million.

Mr. Skinner: That is a lot of money to pay out for the production of nuclear power. The Minister says nothing about the £1.3 billion given annually to the nuclear power industry as a straight subsidy. Will he confirm that, with the construction of Sizewell C at a cost of a further £4 billion, the price of electricity will be 3.7p per kWh, which is far in excess of anything that could be produced by coal-powered stations using British coal? Does it not make a nonsense and scandal of the fact that while British miners have been sacked and thrown on the dole—31,000 of them recently—by the President of the Board of Trade, the Government with their crazy economics will subsidise nuclear power to the hilt?

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman might imagine himself as some latter-day knight defending the coal industry that was—

Mr. Skinner: A trusty shield.

Mr. Page: —but the Government are not prepared to pour money down the throat of the coal industry to produce not cheap but expensive electricity to the detriment of UK Ltd. My right hon. Friend's statement and the debate in the House on the privatisation of the nuclear industry made it perfectly clear what we would do. The privatisation of the nuclear industry is nothing new. We have had a privatisation policy since 1970 and it has produced significant benefits for the British people. It might be interesting for the House to note that before those state industries were privatised, they cost £50 million a week, which came from the taxpayer's pocket. They now contribute £50 million a week to the Treasury.

Newspaper Carriage Charges

Mr. Mullin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from independent newsagents about carriage charges; and if he will make a statement. [26826]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I have received a substantial number of letters, as I informed the House earlier, following a campaign by the National Federation of Retail Newsagents concerning increasing wholesalers' carriage charges.

Mr. Mullin: Given the Government's professed concern for the welfare of small business men, why will they not stick up for the newsagents against the arrogance of those near-monopoly distribution companies? If the Conservative party is the party of competition, should it not be fighting for the newsagents, not for the near-monopoly distribution companies, which are extremely arrogant and abuse their power daily?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman should know that the role performed by the small retail newsagent is recognised and well understood by Conservative Members. We also recognise the anxieties that have been expressed by many people in the industry about increasing wholesale charges.
As I said earlier, it is important that all sections of the industry—publishers, wholesalers and newsagents—get together to resolve that difficulty. It is certainly not in the interests of the publishers for the position of the small retail newsagent to be damaged, because half the fixed sales of newspapers are undertaken through the delivery mechanisms of small retail newsagents, and advertising revenue is fixed on that basis.
In those circumstances, it is important that that dialogue takes place. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Frost of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents has informed me that part of that dialogue is already taking place.

Points of Order

Mr. Jim Cousins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the whole House heard a statement by the President of the Board of Trade, indicating the important role of Mr. Gerald James of Astra in exposing the affairs of BMARC. Today, we have no statement from the President of the Board of Trade that he is suspending or withdrawing his politically decided prosecution, under the Companies Act, of Mr. Gerald James and the other directors of Astra. Have you had notice of such a statement?

Madam Speaker: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is asking me if I have had notice of any statement by the President of the Board of Trade. The answer is no. I am sure that, if that had been the case, we would all have known about it because it would have been on the annunciator screen by 1 o'clock.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Last Friday, we had a debate on the Government's White Paper, "Tackling Drugs Together". Since then, we have seen reports—I am sure that you have seen them, Madam Speaker—of the Royal College of Nursing survey that shows that mental hospitals and patients are becoming a paradise for drug pushing. Given that the Government will make the chief executives of the health authorities responsible for co-ordinating Government policy, is not that a contradiction? Have the Secretary of State for Health or the Home Secretary said whether they will be making a statement about that latest evidence of exploitation?

Madam Speaker: The answer is no. I have had no indication that a statement is to be made.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That the Matter of rural affairs in Wales, being a Matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Wood.]

Employers' Organisations

Mr. Denis MacShane: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set up a Royal Commission to examine the role and purpose of federations and other organisations representing employers with a view to making recommendations as to the desirability of a more united and representative network of employers' organisations able to discharge more effectively their obligations in economic and labour market policy fields nationally, regionally and in the community.
I ask the House to cast its mind back to the great reforms of trade union legislation—I phrase it as neutrally as I can—in the 1980s because, if reforms of trade unions were an issue 15 years ago, I believe that reforms of employer federations and companies are an issue today. If we consider organisations in the United Kingdom that represent or speak for employers in different forms, we see nothing but discord, incoherence and lack of unity. There is an alphabet soup of those organisations—the CBI, the IOD, the EEF, chambers of commerce, the 1M or Institute of Management—and it is difficult to get any clear idea of what any one or all of them stand for. If, for example, the Confederation of British Industry supports EMU, the Institute of Directors naturally must oppose it. If the CBI is hostile to the social chapter inside the United Kingdom, we find it negotiating with the European trade union congress on social chapter questions via UNICE, the European employers federation.
There have been concrete proposals for mergers. Some 25 years ago Lord Devlin proposed that the Association of Chambers of Commerce and the CBI should merge, but his suggestion was brushed aside. Three or four years ago the Engineering Employers Federation and the CBI were involved in merger talks, but the proposed merger was rejected. We have the absurd spectacle of two competing organisations—the EEF and the CBI's National Manufacturing Council—speaking on behalf of the manufacturing sector.
Who belongs to those organisations and what do they do? Compared with trade unions, they are cult-like and secretive. Their directors come from we know not where and they are not accountable in the full public sense of the word. According to the certification office, there are 230 employer federations or associations—that is more than three times the number of trade unions. As a confederation, the CBI is not covered by the same rules as employer associations. Its accounts, internal practices and even its membership are shrouded in secrecy.
The Institute of Directors, which is often in the news, is nothing more than an agreeable Pall Mall club. Half its members live overseas and we know nothing about them. If in the early 1960s it raised eyebrows to state one's occupation as "model" on one's passport, today I think that we should be concerned about the occupation of "company director"—especially in the case of Cabinet Ministers who were former directors of companies such as BMARC.
I have to admire the IOD's chutzpah, but it should be seen for what it is: the extreme end of the industrial wing of the Tory party and a glorious excuse for expense account outings to listen to the musings and the ideology of the admittedly able executives whom it employs. The CBI, on the other hand, is a much more coherent and solid organisation. It patrols the corridors of power and dispenses its chardonnay and chips with flair. But despite


the solidity and worth of its publications, it too has failed to keep an equidistance between the different social and political forces in the nation.
There is a state of what one might call permanent column-inch warfare among the different organisations. In that sense, they represent the modern world perfectly—that of press releases without responsibility, the prerogative of spin merchants throughout history. They claim power, but they reject responsibility for delivering effective training, shaping a pay policy that lessens rather than increases inequalities, and developing a patient stakeholder capitalism rather than the short-term greed of our dividend pay-out and share option society.
What are the answers? I can do no better than turn to the book entitled "Where there's a Will", written by a prominent contender for the leadership of the Conservative party—but I shall not enter into that debate now. In his book, the President of the Board of Trade pointed out that
every EEC country except for Belgium and Ireland bestows public law status on its chambers of commerce. Each is required to act on behalf of all enterprises within its locality and all companies are required to join. The collective voice of business is thus regionally and sectorally representative and so the more powerful in dealing with government. In return for State funding, through a special tax mechanism, the chambers provide a number of facilities … in such matters as apprentice training, aspects of vocational education, technical counselling, or legal advice".
I urge all hon. Members to accept the sound advice of the President of the Board of Trade. The Government should translate his words into policy. I know that he is an old Heath-style tripartite corporatist, a self-confessed Euro-fanatic and almost a closet social democrat in the Cabinet, but he speaks with some wisdom.
If the incoherence is marked at a national level, it is even more so at local level. Earlier, in DTI questions, we heard reference to business links. I support the setting up of the business links, but they compete now with chambers of commerce and with training and enterprise councils. Again, we have confusion and incoherence at local level in representation of employers' interests.
I commend to the House the example set in Rotherham which I hope will be followed. The chamber of commerce and the training and enterprise council are discussing merging in order to form a Chamtec, which can open up new horizons for local representation.
The examples from Europe are so much more positive. In Denmark in the past three or four years the number of employers' organisations has been reduced by two thirds. In Germany there are three umbrella organisations—one for chambers of commerce, one for different industrial groupings and one for employers. They are all linked by one co-ordinating organisation. In France, the Conseil National du Patronat Francais represents 80 per cent. of all employing firms in France. It is able to participate as an effective partner, sometimes with the Government and sometimes with unions—not the old tripartite corporatism, but, as needed, to discuss pay, working hours, training and other aspects of the labour market.
Trade unions in Britain have changed dramatically, and for the better, in the past 15 years. Laws on their oversight, the election of their officials and ballots before they declare policy have worked and proved welcome. I think that trade unions would agree that they were wrong to reject those proposals 15 years ago, but they accept the reforms now. A similar package of reforms is overdue in the world of employers' organisations. Employers are ultimately the job creators. I accept that they are wealth providers. They have been left untouched and unreformed for a quarter of a century or more.
Britain needs national renewal. It needs an end to the master-servant relations so typical of our labour market under the Conservative Government and the creation of a post-corporatist partnership society. Employers' organisations should be at the cutting edge, leading that renewal, but they represent, alas, old, divided, and adversarial Britain. My Bill proposes a national debate and a genuine discussion. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Denis MacShane, Ms Judith Church, Mr. Ken Purchase, Mrs. Helen Liddell, Mr. Robert Ainsworth, Mr. Stanley Orme, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Peter Hain, Mr. Jeff Rooker and Mr. Paul Flynn.

EMPLOYERS' ORGANISATIONS

Mr. Denis MacShane accordingly presented a Bill to set up a Royal Commission to examine the role and purpose of federations and other organisations representing employers with a view to making recommendations as to the desirability of a more united and representative network of employers' organisations able to discharge more effectively their obligations in economic and labour market policy fields nationally, regionally and in the community: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.
The boundary commission for England submitted its fourth periodic report on 12 April. I propose that its final recommendations should be implemented without modifications. Paragraph 2 of the order substitutes the constituencies described in the schedule for the present constituencies in England. If the draft order is approved by both Houses, I shall submit it to Her Majesty in Council to be made.
Paragraph 1(2) provides that the order comes into operation on the 14th day after the day on which it is made, but the new boundaries will come into effect only following the dissolution of Parliament at the next general election. That means that the existing constituency boundaries will continue to apply for any by-election before then.
As the House will be aware, the report of the Scottish boundary commission and the report of the Welsh boundary commission were both debated in March and the orders have been approved by Her Majesty in Council. I understand that the boundary commission for Northern Ireland hopes to submit its report to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland this month.
The boundary commissions have a long history. An all-party conference was set up under the chairmanship of the Speaker in 1917 to consider questions of electoral reform. Its reports recommended, among other things, the setting up of a boundary commission which was tasked to devise a scheme for the redistribution of seats. The rules within which the commission operated were found to be too strict and Parliament relaxed them, but, even so, the commission's final recommendations provoked some special pleading and complaints of damage to historic traditions.
Until 1918 there was no attempt to establish numerical equality between constituencies. After 1918, boundary commissioners, specially appointed for the purpose, strove to keep constituencies close to a national quota and, in doing so, breached for the very first time the principle of "communal" representation. Despite the boundary commissioners' efforts, by 1939 there were 20 constituencies with 100,000 electors and 13 constituencies with fewer than 30,000 electors. In 1942, a departmental committee recommended, among other things, the establishment of permanent boundary commissions to make general reviews of constituencies once in the life of every normal Parliament instead of leaving the situation to be dealt with only when gross anomalies had arisen.
The question was considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference in 1944. A solution was found which was acceptable to all the parties. It was agreed that, after an initial redistribution through statute, effect should be given to periodic boundary changes through an order presented in draft to Parliament by the Home Secretary of the day and approved by affirmative resolution of each

House. That had the effect of allowing Parliament to continue to exercise its overall control of the redistribution of seats while not overwhelming the House with detail or endangering the independence of the boundary commission.
The Speaker's Conference recommendations were implemented in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944, and that Act was subsequently amended and consolidated into the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. Under the 1986 Act, the boundary commissions were required to carry out a general review of parliamentary constituency boundaries not fewer than 10 or more than 15 years from the date of the submission of their previous report. In 1992, Parliament decided to increase the frequency of general reviews, and the Boundary Commission Act 1992 provides that a general review should be carried out not fewer than eight or more than 12 years after the date of the submission of the previous report.
The same Act provided that the first mandatory report which falls to be made after the passing of the Act should be submitted not later than 31 December 1994. The report that we are debating today is the first mandatory report of the boundary commission for England following the passage of the 1992 Act. It was submitted late, but the 1992 Act expressly provides that a failure by a boundary commission to submit a report within the time limit should not be regarded as invalidating the report for the purposes of any legislation.
The commission's fourth periodic report is the culmination of four years of intensive public work, preceded by more than two years of preparation. It would be wrong of me to proceed any further without taking this opportunity to thank Sir John Knox, the deputy chairman, and the members of the commission for the very great efforts that they have made in carrying out this work. I am sure that the House will join me in recognising that and in expressing appreciation of the care and dedication with which the commission, assistant commissioners and officers have approached their task and the meticulous conduct of the review which this report exemplifies.
The commission has a duty in a general review to look at England as a whole. As it is required to do, the commission announced its intention to begin the review and a notice to that effect was published in the London Gazette on 21 February 1991. That date is important as it represents the enumeration date, or the date on which the commission is required to base its calculations on electorate numbers. That and other elements of the process by which the commission is required to operate are governed by a set of rules for the redistribution of seats. The rules are set out in schedule 2 to the 1986 Act.

Mr. David Ashby: The rules and the way in which inquiries take place throw up a most unfair practice affecting individual constituencies, when the commission puts forward a representation of what the constituency should comprise and another party puts forward its representation as to the distribution. If the other suggestion is taken up, there may be some minor alterations and there should be a mini-inquiry lasting half a day, or no more than a day, slightly amending and improving the final recommendation. That is not available and, in all fairness and justice, it should be.

Mr. Howard: It can be. As my hon. Friend is aware, the commission has a discretion to hold a second inquiry.


Later, I shall explain that there have been occasions—two in the course of the review—when a second inquiry was made. My hon. Friend has asked me to look at the procedures and we intend to do so, and I shall explain to the House in due course how we intend to carry out that exercise.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend may be aware of the concern expressed in Southend-on-Sea that the new constituency is to be called Rochford and Southend, East as opposed to Southend, East and Rochford. Can he provide any guidance as to how on earth the boundary commission decides on the names of constituencies and which boroughs it puts first?

Mr. Howard: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have read the report of the boundary commission and in particular that part of its report which deals with Southend and Rochford. I would add to or put any gloss on the conclusions of the commission at my peril. I am sure that my hon. Friend, in intervening in my speech, was not seeking to put me in any peril. I hope that he will understand if I refer him to the report of the commission and say that what he finds there explains, as far as it can be explained, the basis of the commission's decision. I fear that I can neither add to it nor subtract from it. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful to my hon. Friend.
The rules set out in schedule 2 to the 1986 Act have the effect of requiring that the number of parliamentary constituencies in England should not be substantially greater than 507 and provide criteria on considerations of electoral equality, local ties, administrative boundaries and geographical considerations within which the commission must exercise a general discretion.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is considerable confusion in London as to how the boundary commission can say that electorates of 55,000 are right in two Islington constituencies and then create constituencies of 80,000 elsewhere in London? Surely that is not equalising the worth of a vote.

Mr. Howard: I am aware of the concern that exists in London. If hon. Friend will restrain himself, I shall in a moment deal with the position on London and the commission's approach to it.
I was explaining the rules that provide that the number of English constituencies should not be substantially greater than 507. The House will appreciate that that requirement creates a problem. The current composition of the House includes 524 English seats and the report that we are debating recommends that there should be a further increase of five to 529. The difficulty arises from the fact that the 1986 Act does not define what may be properly considered as "substantially greater". It is for the commission to exercise its discretion in determining how to interpret that particular rule.
The problem with the rules is not a new phenomenon. They have often been the subject of some controversy and the House spent a considerable amount of time in 1983 debating them at the time of the third periodic review report.
The Home Affairs Select Committee looked at the rules in 1987 and identified a number of concerns, of which the principal one was the growth in the number of seats that

has followed each general review. That process is described in the commission's report as a ratchet effect and was commented on also by the Welsh boundary commission in its report, submitted in December last year. The Home Affairs Select Committee came up with a number of recommendations, some of which the Government accepted and intend to adopt at a suitable legislative opportunity. But its proposal for a fixed divisor as a means of stabilising the number of seats was not accepted, although the Government agreed in principle that the size of the House should be stabilised.
The House returned to consideration of the rules when it debated and approved the Boundary Commission Act 1992. The Government said during that debate that they would wish to look again at the rules on completion of this fourth general review. That remains our intention, and I have asked my officials to begin planning for that review, which I intend will start this summer after Parliament has had the opportunity to consider the report of the boundary commission for Northern Ireland, which will be the last of the four commissions to report. The review of the rules will be a major exercise in which we shall consult a wide range of interested parties.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the review take account of the city of Birmingham's unique situation? The average ward size is 19,000 electors. If parliamentary constituencies cannot have equal numbers of wards, there are bound to be disparities between one constituency and another of at least 19,000 because of the impossibility of splitting wards—that is the crucial factor. It cripples the boundary redistribution in Birmingham in a way that is not reflected anywhere else in England.

Mr. Howard: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that he will understand that I do not propose to draw up the terms of reference of the review while I am on my feet in this debate; but I certainly undertake fully to consider his point when drawing up those terms of reference.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Who is going to conduct this review? As it is so important, it must be seen to be done fairly. Would it not therefore be better to set up a team reflecting all shades of political representation, perhaps headed by a High Court judge, than to use people from the Department?

Mr. Howard: We shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point. As I have just said, the review will involve consultation with a wide range of interested parties. That is how we have always approached these matters; we have always sought to reach consensus whenever possible, and we shall continue to proceed on that basis.

Mr. Hartley Booth: When my right hon. and learned Friend reviews the rules later this summer, will he undertake to look again at the extraordinary rules that have resulted in the anomaly, in London, of a difference of 27,000 electors between the largest and smallest constituencies? Two constituencies of 55,000 electors are thought too small for some reason, but two others in Islington, with 55,000 and 54,000 electors, are not thought too small.

Mr. Howard: I shall be coming to London in a moment. We shall certainly try to learn from all relevant experience, in the context of the review, so that we may


arrive at a set of rules that will achieve the widest possible support and the best possible answer. That will be the object of the exercise and the purpose of the review.
It is the rules as they are currently written which provide the basic criteria against which the fourth periodic review has been carried out. The recommendations in the commission's report are, I have no doubt, the most closely considered, discussed and debated that any English commission has yet produced. Certainly the report that carries the detail of the proposals, inquiries, consideration and counter-proposals is more than twice the length of, and has twice as many volumes of maps as, its predecessor of 1983.
The commission has produced recommendations that will affect to a greater or lesser extent the make-up of more than seven out of 10 English parliamentary seats. It has conducted public inquiries in almost every London borough, in metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts. Second inquiries were necessary in Hampshire and Devon because new proposals were introduced after the first public inquiry which the commission considered had not been fully explored in earlier phases of the review.
The commission's proposal for an increase in the overall number of seats in England is one which I know was not arrived at without careful consideration of other options. There would have been an increase of 20 seats rather than the five now proposed if the commission had not been able to balance some increases by reductions in the number of seats elsewhere.
One of the major factors that allowed the commission to limit the number of new constituencies was a continuation of a pattern which had been identified by its predecessors in 1983, of a migration of the electorate out of, in particular, the Greater London area. The commission has found it necessary to reduce by 10 seats the number of constituencies in London boroughs, and recommends that the electorate in the London boroughs should he represented by 74 constituencies. That compares with 92 seats before the 1983 review, a net loss over the 12 years from 1983 of 18 seats.
In addition, for the first time, the commission has taken the view that in London it is necessary to cross borough boundaries so that it may meet the requirements of rule 5, which requires it to recommend constituencies which are as near to the electoral quota as is practicable.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that within London there is concern that London seats with an electorate of 50,000 and more would be got rid of by the boundary commission, whereas the commission has created smaller seats elsewhere—for example, Glasgow, Shettleston, with 48,000; Paisley, North, 49,000; Glasgow, Govan, 50,000 and Glasgow, Cathcart, 50,000? That is not an equalisation of votes across the country.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend touches on a very significant point. He is right. There is no equalisation of votes across the United Kingdom. Scotland is dealt with separately by a separate commission under separate rules. There is no doubt that Scotland is represented by more smaller constituencies than is England.
I return to London. The decision to cross borough boundaries was not taken lightly. It was a break with the precedent maintained by earlier commissions, and required the commission to depart from rule 4, which

requires that the boundaries of the London boroughs should not be broken. The decision is one that the commission is entitled to make within the rules. Before doing so it set itself criteria to be applied to any decision to cross boundaries. The criteria required the commission to consider crossing boundaries only where the result would be not to increase the number of seats which would otherwise have been allocated to individual boroughs, and where the result provided a better match with the electoral quota than would otherwise have been achieved. No boroughs on opposite sides of the River Thames below Kingston upon Thames were paired.
That method of working was discussed with the political parties in a meeting before the start of the review of London boroughs so as to explain the commission's general approach to London and to give the political parties the opportunity to comment. In common with the approach adopted generally to publicising its work, the commission issued a newsletter during the summer of 1992 detailing that discussion and the proposed methodology that it would use.
In metropolitan areas outside London, the commission has been much more prepared than in the past to recommend constituencies crossing metropolitan district boundaries. That is in order to give full regard to the requirements of electoral parity. The rules require, so far as is practicable, that constituencies in metropolitan boroughs should be contained within county boundaries, but they do not restrict the commission from crossing borough boundaries. The commission's recommendations on this occasion call for borough boundaries to be crossed on 13 occasions, compared with six such crossings in 1983. The commission's recommendations involve a reduction of five seats in the metropolitan counties against the present number.
By comparison, the review has resulted in proposals for an overall increase in the number of constituencies in non-metropolitan districts. The counties will, if the recommendations are accepted by Parliament and approved by Her Majesty in Council, return 20 more representatives to the House after the next general election.
On this occasion, as with previous general reviews, the boundary commission found that its work coincided with that of other review bodies considering local government reorganisation. The boundary commissions are required by the 1992 Act to report within the specified deadline, and therefore it was not an option for them to delay or defer their work until that local government reorganisation had been completed. The effect of the 1992 Act was that the English commission had to take account only of those local authority boundaries that were in force on 1 June 1994.
The commission states that subsequent changes, particularly in the non-metropolitan counties, could affect the constituency boundaries that are now proposed. The commission may therefore decide to hold interim reviews in parts of England to consider further realignments of constituency boundaries where the effects of local government reorganisation make that necessary. That is entirely a matter for the commission to decide, but I understand that it is unlikely that any interim review would be completed before the next general election.
I turn now to the detail of the report. It has been suggested that these are the most controversial recommendations that an English boundary commission


has proposed. A careful reading of Hansard reports of earlier debates suggests that that charge has been raised against every periodic report. Nevertheless, the volume of representations that I and the commission have received on this occasion is convincing evidence of the interest that we in this House, and the electors in the constituencies, take in the subject.
The Roman author, Terence, writing more than 150 years before the birth of Christ, put the issue succinctly when he wrote:
so many men, so many options; his own a law to each.
The boundary commission has produced a most thorough examination of the constituency map and has produced a report with a great many recommendations for change. I do not propose to go into the detail of each recommendation—to do so would be to try the patience of the House, as many of the recommendations are such that they require a detailed examination of the excellent maps that are provided in the report.
There are, however, a number of recommendations that are right for me to highlight in introducing this order. I have already touched on the decision to cross London borough boundaries. It is the first time that cross-borough constituencies have been proposed in London, and the practice has attracted a considerable amount of discussion among the London electorate and with local political parties, and, already, in the House this afternoon.
That is a course that is open to the commission to take. As a result of crossing borough boundaries, the commission now proposes three fewer seats in Greater London than would have been the case otherwise. Another effect has been to reduce from 27 to one the number of London borough constituencies that have a disparity from the electoral quota of more than 20 per cent., when compared with the existing constituencies at the enumeration date of 21 February 1991.
Outside London, the commission's recommendations produce a similar pattern of a reduction in the number of constituencies that are more than 20 per cent. at variance with the electoral quota. The reduction in the metropolitan districts is from 16 such constituencies in 1991 to only one now recommended. In the non-metropolitan districts, it is from 31 to two. Improvements of that nature are not achieved without considerable thought, discussion and, at the end of the day, inevitably, some compromise. The recommendations on three areas outside London have given rise to particular debate.
In West Sussex, the commission was faced with two strongly opposed arguments on how to deal with the distribution of seats representing towns along the coast and their immediate hinterland. The commission held a public inquiry and considered representations that were made to it. The public inquiry was conducted by an independent assistant commissioner selected from a panel appointed by my predecessor. The commission expressed some sympathy with the proposal that the area should be represented by constituencies that linked the coastal towns with their immediate adjoining hinterland, but concluded that the better solution would be to create constituencies that linked the coastal towns together.
I know that a number of hon. Members will regard that as having been the wrong decision. But it was a decision not taken lightly by the commission, which had regard, as

it must within the rules, to the extent and strength of local ties, as those ties were expressed at the public inquiry and in representations.
Quite properly, the boundary commission has not approached its task in a mechanistic manner. In some instances counter-proposals proved to be more acceptable to the local electorate. Where the commission was able to do so within the rules, it produced revised recommendations in the light of such counter-proposals.
In Manchester and Trafford the public inquiry revealed strong local feeling that the Wythenshawe community should not be divided, as the commission had originally proposed. The commission considered several alternative options that had been suggested to it and concluded that the original proposals should be modified.
The effect of that response to local opinion was that it was no longer possible to bring together in a single constituency the community of Sale, which had been split between constituencies by the third periodic review. The commission's decision to reflect the strength of the local views expressed to it resulted in a further strongly mounted campaign of petitions and representations, the "Save our Sale" campaign, which sought a reversion to the original proposals.
In that case the commission held to the revised proposals, but the particular case of Manchester and Trafford illustrates what I am certain hon. Members will appreciate from their own backgrounds—the especially difficult circumstances within which the commission must work and the dilemmas that result from the requirement to take into account and respond to public opinion.

Mr. Winston Churchill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain to my constituents in Davyhulme, especially to those in Sale, who, although they live in part of Trafford, will now be thrown across the boundary into the city of Manchester for electoral purposes, why the boundary commission rejected its own impartial proposals on the strength of a mere 327 objections, principally from the Wythenshawe constituency, yet was not prepared to re-examine the revised proposals when it received more than 12,500 letters of objection from my constituents—by far the highest number of protests ever received on one issue by the boundary commission?

Mr. Howard: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) earlier, the commission made the decisions and the commission has explained them. I can add nothing to, nor subtract anything from, what the commission says in its report on the matter. I understand my hon. Friend's frustration and the strength of his feeling, but he will understand that I cannot go beyond the reasoning given by the commission in its report, so I hope that he will bear with me.
At this stage I propose to deal with only one more example of the concerns that the commission has been required to face and overcome. Rossendale, like so many of the old communities in Lancashire, has a clear sense of local identity. The boundary commission's initial proposals called for the town of Haslingden to be separated from the Rossendale and Darwen constituency, breaking that community. The commission received a great many representations arguing for the retention of local ties, and my noble Friend Baroness Blatch received


an all-party delegation on the matter headed by Sir David Trippier, who represented the constituency of Rossendale and Darwen in the House for several years.
In the case of Rossendale it was generally acknowledged that the district would have provided a coherent and reasonably sized constituency. But the commission believed that it would not then have been possible to construct sensible constituencies in the remainder of Lancashire. On that occasion, therefore, it held to its original proposals.
Many other points could be made about the recommendations for individual constituencies, and I have no doubt that hon. Members will wish to raise many of them in the debate. Before I finish speaking and allow that debate to start, however, it is right that I should again pay tribute to the overall achievements of the commission.
The report is the work of an independent body headed by a deputy chairman who is a High Court judge. As the House is aware, I have a power to modify the recommendations of the commission through the draft order. The relevant provision in the 1986 Act does not place any constraints on the exercise of that power. However, in considering whether I should make any modification I have been acutely aware of the practical constraints on its exercise.
One such constraint lies in the risk that I would be accused of making a change not because of its merits but because of political bias.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Surely not.

Mr. Howard: rose—[Interruption.] I am much reassured by the fact that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) thinks such an accusation inconceivable.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In fact I said, "What's new?"

Mr. Howard: Moving a ward from one constituency to another may affect the outcome of any election in those constituencies.
In approaching the consideration of how I might exercise my power under the Act, I have started from the proposition that, before modifying a recommendation, I would need to be persuaded that any substantive change could be shown to result in a greater compliance with the rules than did the commission's recommendations, that there would be no adverse implications for neighbouring seats, and that the proposed change commanded such widespread support as to justify my overturning the recommendation of an impartial body.
None of the representations that have been made to me in respect of the current report has persuaded me that a change would be justified when judged against those criteria. Accordingly, after giving the question careful consideration, I decided not to modify the recommendations.
It is worth emphasising the point of the impartial nature of the commission. Boundary commissions are independent bodies that properly take no instruction from the Government of the day in reaching their conclusions. The commission has reached its recommendations on that basis. I commend the report that contains those recommendations and the order that gives effect to them to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: Like the Secretary of State for the Home Department, I place on record our appreciation of the work of the boundary commission and its officials, and I commend him for bringing the order to the House intact and without amendment.
The Secretary of State was right to imply that all hon. Members have an entirely legitimate, let it be said, partisan interest in the outcome of the recommendations. On this occasion, I am relaxed about the results of the commission's recommendations on Lancashire as they leave my constituency wholly untouched.
I took a different view about the 1983 recommendations. If it is any comfort to the hon. Members for Finchley (Mr. Booth) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who are battling for a single seat, in 1983 I also took a different view about the partiality of the commission—although of course I never said so—because it added 20,000 mainly Conservative electors to my constituency. It made it a constituency of 75,000 people, to keep the Ribble Valley constituency at 55,000. I also, therefore, have a personal interest in these matters.
The Secretary of State was right in his comments about the importance of the House respecting the integrity and independence of the commission. We have only to consider other countries to realise what extraordinary difficulties they can face when their politicians allow themselves to make the final decisions on such matters.
I have here a detailed article from the American Political Science Review. Astonishingly enough, it is entitled:
Enhancing Democracy Through Legislative Redistricting"—
in September 1994, that publication finally came to the opinion that that was possible. That article's summary seriously discusses the issue of gerrymandering. It says:
while some researchers believe that gerrymandering dramatically increases partisan bias and others deny this effect, we show both sides are in a sense correct. Gerrymandering biases electoral systems in favor of the party that controls the redistricting as compared to what would have happened if the other party controlled it, but any type of redistricting reduces partisan bias as compared to an electoral system without redistricting.
That serious academic work backs up gerrymandering, provided that it takes place in the context of redistricting.
The fact that serious academic money can be devoted to such academic nonsense illustrates what can happen when a country does not establish proper procedures for determining boundary changes. We should be proud of the arrangements that have been achieved. Of course, they need amendment and change, but those of us who, over the years, have had the job of giving evidence to various boundary commissions know that commission officers, assistant commissioners and the commission itself do their job with the very best of intentions: to ensure that what is produced is fair to all electors. They are acutely aware of the need to cut through the sort of partisan arguments that all political parties put up, to find where justice lies for communities.
The Secretary of State referred to the large number of representations that commissioners have received; I understand that, in total, they received 40,000 separate representations. That shows the health of our democracy and the interest that electors take in it. It is also significant in terms of the effectiveness of the review. In one sense it is better than previous ones because it was not the


subject of a legal action by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party or by the chairman of the Conservative party. One of the major academic studies suggests that the fourth review has achieved greater electoral equality than the third review. We should bear that in mind when weighing up cases for particular areas.
It has been suggested that we are entirely sanguine about the report because we think that we have achieved some partisan advantage from it. It is important to place it on record that the best estimate of the effect of the reforms is that the Conservative party is likely to gain more seats than Labour. The suggestion by Rawlings and Thrasher, which is mentioned in research paper 95/74 in the Library, is that the Conservatives might gain seven seats, Labour might gain two and the Liberal Democrats might suffer a loss of two. Therefore, while we welcome the report, we do not do so because we think that it is to our electoral advantage.
It is also worth bearing in mind the fact that although the number of electors in Conservative seats tends to be slightly larger than in Labour seats, the number of voters required to elect a Conservative Member is slightly fewer than for the election of a Labour Member. The figures are 41,943 for a Conservative Member compared with 42,605 for a Labour Member. That again suggests, if anything, a slight bias in the system towards the Conservative party.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about Scotland?

Mr. Straw: The order is about England, but the hon. Lady came in on cue. I am speaking about the Labour party, but she decided to speak about Scotland. At one time the Conservative party was as proud of its representation in Scotland as it was of its representation in England. In my lifetime, the Conservatives had many more seats in Scotland than the Labour party. If the hon. Lady is concerned about the small number of Conservative seats in Scotland, she should look to the collapse of the Conservative vote and the reasons for it, rather than trying to raise extraneous matters in a debate on an English order.
Perhaps the opinion that somehow we have done better from the review is based not on a serious statistical analysis of the review but on the view of those who have observed the different approach of the Labour party and the Conservative party to each of the inquiries. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) would be more concerned to ask me about the review in Lancashire. I went to that inquiry and I think that the hon. Lady was also there. We were faced with an extraordinary spectacle. There was a united Labour party, with one exception—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Bullies.

Mr. Straw: If the Labour party wanted lessons in bullying, it could certainly take them from the hon. Lady. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is a compliment to the hon. Lady, and she knows it. I have nothing but profound affection for her, and she knows that too. The Labour party had a united front and presented coherent proposals, but the Conservative party was in utter shambles. One part of it presented proposals that were not backed by another part.
The Home Secretary spoke about Rossendale. That was a serious matter and he was right to speak about it. He was also right to say that the representations to the commission led by Sir David Trippier were all-party. The Labour group on Rossendale district council supported Sir David, as it was fully entitled to do, and not the overall view of the Labour party in Lancashire. So as to accommodate Rossendale, the Conservative party in Lancashire sought suddenly and at the last moment to extract a couple of wards from my constituency, both of which were Conservative, so I had no objection, connect them to four miles of fields bisected by a major motorway and attach them to a bit of Accrington. It then wondered why its proposals were not backed.
That is an illustration of the difference between us and the Conservative party. Indeed, I want to place on record my appreciation of officials at John Smith house and in the regions of the Labour party, ably led by David Gardner—after original prompting from my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) when he dealt with these matters—who ensured that we took the issue very seriously indeed.
The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said on "Newsnight"—I was alongside her as she said it—that we put in a better effort around the country because we were able to give central directions to our party, while Conservative central office was not. I often wondered what Conservative central office was for, except to give centralised directions. For decades, we had nothing but admiration for the way in which the Conservative party operated in respect of its local associations. Nothing has changed—

Mr. Howard: rose

Mr. Straw: Of course I shall give way in a moment. Nothing has changed in the constitution of the Labour party and its relationship with local parties over the past 15 years. We have learnt the lessons of the debacle in which we were involved in 1983, which did us no good, while the Conservative party seems to have forgotten all those lessons.

Mr. Howard: Has it not occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the difference between his party and mine is this: his party is a bunch of apparatchiks operating under centralised diktat, whereas the Conservative party believes in local democracy?

Mr. Straw: No, that thought had not occurred to me—because it happens not to be true. From a very early age, I was brought up in the Labour party being told by its organisers to admire the Stalinist way in which Conservative central office used to operate. I was asked why else it was named in that way. The Conservatives had this authoritarian machine, which ensured that the writ of the chairperson of the Conservative party was applied to the outer reaches of the United Kingdom whenever the chairman or chairwoman in his or her office in central office directed it. For a long time, that was the case. It is a mark of the profound divisions now afflicting the Tory party from top to bottom that it is not only divided on the major issues of Europe, economic policy and social policy, but
on whether two wards in Rossendale should stay in the Rossendale borough or end up in Hyndburn.

Mr. Clive Soley: Will my hon. Friend allow me to give him some meat for his argument? In my


area, members of the Kensington and Chelsea Tory party are fighting each other, as are members of the Fulham Conservative party. One of the ladies from one of those parties said to me that she did not care what those apparatchiks at central office were saying, and she used the words, "We are going our own way." Apparatchiks were present in central office, but they were not very competent.

Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Banks: Over in the London borough of Newham, we had nothing but total admiration for the excellent way in which Labour party officials marshalled the arguments. In the end, they had to persuade the local commissioner, or whoever it was who came from the boundary commission to hear the case. It was thanks to the quality of the arguments and the way in which they were marshalled—nothing to do with this knockabout stuff—that we were able to persuade in the way that we did.

Mr. Straw: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a serious point and reproaches the rest of us for introducing an element of humour into the proceedings. [Laughter.] I accept the reproach. It is an important point because it goes without saying, before such inquiries, that political parties will have a partisan interest in the representations that they are putting forward. That is a common factor in all the representations made. What is then important is the quality of the argument advanced by the political parties and the extent to which the political parties are able to ally with other non-party groups, to ensure that their recommendations win through. It is a mark of the connection between the Labour party and its communities that its argument won through and of the decay of the Stalinist apparatus of Conservative central office that its arguments failed.
I repeat my commendation of the commission to the Secretary of State—I hope that that does not damage an otherwise fine political career, but I repeat it because he was right to bring through the recommendations intact. It is accepted on both sides of the House, however, that there could and should be improvements to the system; I shall go through some of them.
I note that the Secretary of State said that he was establishing a review and I accept that, when those have taken place in the past, every effort has been made to ensure agreement. Another aspect of the way in which we approach these matters is that, despite our partisan interests, we ensure that changes to electoral law are introduced in this House and the other place, so far as humanly possible, only by agreement. I hope that in that spirit, therefore, the Secretary of State will accept the need for agreement about the nature and scope of the review as well as its precise agenda. Perhaps his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with that in his reply.
The following is not by any means an exclusive list, but it includes some of the issues that ought to be raised in the review. The first is the difficult issue of upward drift in the size of the House. It is worth mentioning that the House is not at its record size—it was larger last century, when it included Members of Parliament representing what is now the Republic of Eire—but its size has increased significantly. For reasons of obvious politics, but also for interesting reasons of arithmetic, the system has a natural bias towards increasing the size of

the House. As the Secretary of State said, the Government did not accept the proposal of the Select Committee on Home Affairs for a fixed divisor. I have not reached a final view on the matter, but it ought to be closely examined during the review and we should take full account of the commission's recommendations and views in coming to a conclusion.
The second crucial issue is the size of electoral wards—a matter to which the commission drew attention. The local government ward is the basic building block, which cannot in any circumstances be broken according to rule. I believe that that is correct. The ward is the building block on which the commission has to work. In constituencies such as mine, with 15 wards for an electorate of about 75,000, each ward has an average electorate of 5,000, which does not create any serious problems for rearranging the wards to ensure electoral equality. I do not believe that that causes problems anywhere in the county of Lancashire, but in the metropolitan areas and some parts of London, the size of wards is so great as to hinder significantly the commission's ability to move the pieces of the jigsaw around.
The extraordinary disparity in the size of wards in otherwise similar areas is surprising and must be looked into when considering fair representation at local government level as well as the commission's facility to redistribute boundaries fairly. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Hendon, South because in his area the wards are on the whole large, whereas in the south of London they tend to be much smaller. The House of Commons Library tells me that Hadley in Barnet, which has 13,714 electors, is the largest ward in London, whereas the Clockhouse ward in Sutton has an eighth of that number, with 1,525.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned the enormous size of wards in Birmingham in a question to the Secretary of State. Typically, Members of Parliament representing Birmingham seats have just three wards in their constituencies. The largest ward in the country is New Hall in Birmingham, Sutton with 24,816 electors; it is five times the size of wards in my constituency. At the other end of the scale, Cantril Farm ward in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) has 4,043 electors. The explanation for the low number in that ward might involve electoral registration, but even allowing for that, the disparity in the size of wards is unacceptably wide. I hope that the Government agree that, in looking at the size of wards, we must also look at whether wards should be represented by one, two or three councillors.
A great city such as Birmingham—this is a matter that I have thought about, and I do not doubt that Conservative Members have also done so—has a large council. Unless we wish to turn councils into chambers of legislature, there seem to be practical limits on the size of any council. Already, Birmingham has more than 100 councillors, and I do not believe that there is much scope for increasing the total number of councillors. Instead of having three councillors for each ward, we could have one or two. I happen to think—this is not a party view—that there are other advantages in doing that, as it produces a closer connection between the councillor and his ward. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster may be


saying under her breath that there are plenty of examples in shire districts of only one or two councillors for each ward.
A great span in terms of the size of wards can be found in the shire districts, ranging from 14,774 voters in Nene Valley in Northamptonshire to just 194 in Chenies, in the Chilterns in Buckinghamshire. Both are in the home counties, so there can be no argument that one is more rural than the other. Within the borough of Milton Keynes, wards range in size from about 13,000 to 1,620. That must be examined carefully.
We must look at the commission's recommendations in respect of the process of inquiry. The commission proposes that the statutory period for objection should be extended from one to two months, and that is a sensible proposal, which needs to be examined in detail. The commission also suggested that there should be a power to define the operational scope of inquiries.
During the Lancashire inquiry—the only one with which I have had direct contact—I was pleasantly surprised by the skill that the assistant commissioner showed in conducting an orchestra, the members of which were playing from different scores and to different time. There was a grave danger that the inquiry could have turned into a tribunal, with lawyers popping up. I know, and the Home Secretary accepts, that we are a fine body of men, but even lawyers sometimes have their disadvantages. There was a grave danger that lawyers would pop up the whole time and that the inquiry would be disrupted. As it happened, the assistant commissioner got through the process quickly and expeditiously. The commission recommended that the operational scope of inquiries should be defined, and I hope that that happens.
I now come to the issue of names. I took full account of what the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said about some of the names that the commission has proposed. In my view, the mother and father of the confusion over the names of constituencies in England goes back to the ludicrous names given in the 1972 local government reorganisation process. In looking down a list of the names of districts in Surrey, for example, we see that some do relate to real places, such as Guildford and Epsom and Ewell. But there are others which, while I am not saying that they are not real places, are not very well-known real places, such as Elmbridge, Mole Valley, Waverley—easily confused with Waveney, another artificial name given to a part of Suffolk—and Spelthorne.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is it not absurd that the word Wyre occurs in two widely different constituencies?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is ludicrous, and it must cause enormous confusion. It was not until I had the benefit of campaigning in both constituencies—and confusing each with the other—that I spotted the difficulty.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: A singular failure.

Mr. Straw: Well, there we are. I have referred to Waveney and Waverley, and the hon. Member for Lancaster was right to refer to Wyre. I might add that it took the people of Accrington a long time to understand

that they lived in a borough of Hyndburn. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) thinks that Waverley is a station in Edinburgh.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I bring my hon. Friend more good news from the London borough of Newham, where there was always some feeling about that name, and say how much we welcome the boundary commissioners' recommendation to get rid of Newham, North-West and Newham, North-East and call those two constituencies West Ham and East Ham? If only the boundary commissioners were qualified to recommend the transfer of West Ham football club out of East Ham and into West Ham, that would have made more sense.

Mr. Straw: I do not mind where West Ham football club resides, provided that it keeps going. May I place on record my heartfelt thanks to West Ham football team for ensuring that Blackburn Rovers won the league championship?
We must ensure that constituency names, which after all are attached to us, are recognisable. The root of the word "Commons" is "commune". It means that we represent communities, not the common people, and it is important that the people should know which communities we represent. They should therefore not have artificial names.
The final issue that I wish to deal with is the size of the electoral register. In all the boundary commission's considerations, it is crucial that it has accurate information about the number of electors in each constituency and area under review. Ensuring that people are on the electoral register has always been challenging because some people have not wanted to be on it, and others have not been put on by landlords or landladies, or have moved away at the wrong time. Both sides of the House now accept, however, that as a result of the poll tax, for which the Secretary of State has some responsibility, although he does not often speak about it—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It was a jolly good tax.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady says that it was a jolly good tax.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It was a very fair tax because people who demand services on Christmas day, every day of the week and twice on Sundays and do not pay for it, did pay for it under the community charge.

Mr. Tony Banks: Why did you scrap it, then?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I did not want it scrapped.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We are rapidly developing a sub-plot. Let us return to the main task.

Mr. Straw: The plot is the same. It is called "winning the election". I was only too delighted to give way to my good hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster because the more she talks about the poll tax between now and the general election, the more we are likely to win not only seats elsewhere in England but the hon. Lady's seat.
This is an important issue because the poll tax led to substantial under-registration, particularly but not exclusively in inner-urban areas. Although the poll tax has now gone, many people are still not on the register as


they lost the habit of registration. Moreover, insufficient resources have been invested in getting them back on to the register.
I have complimented the Secretary of State three times now, so even he would say that I have conducted myself in an entirely non-partisan way. I shall now revert to my normal approach and make an important partisan point. I wish to compare the amount spent on advertising registration on the electoral register for UK-based voters with the amount spent advertising registration abroad for overseas voters.
I choose 1991 because it was a pre-election year, which is also why the Conservatives chose it. In 1991, £218,000 was spent on publicity on the electoral roll for UK-based residents, but £705,000—three times as much—was spent on advertising registration abroad, to get expatriates on to the register in this country. If one relates those figures to the number of electors, the difference is phenomenal: 0.5p for each UK-based resident and £22 for each elector resident overseas.
I believe that that is wrong. We participated in the 1985 arrangements in respect of overseas electors, but there must be agreement between the parties about the amount of money that is to be spent on publicity and the way in which it is to be spent, and that was an abuse.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Do the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted include the amount of money spent by local authorities, which also spend money on persuading people to sign on to the electoral register? No local authority would spend money on trying to persuade expatriates or people in other countries to register. Therefore, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's figures are reliable if he has not included the money that is spent by local authorities. Will he tell us whether it was included or not?

Mr. Straw: The figures that I quoted are for central Government spending, not local authority spending. I accept that. Nevertheless, it does not alter the validity of my argument, because the national publicity campaign—the national television advertising and the other advertising—is the responsibility of the Home Office, and it undertakes it.
What is more, I doubt that, even if one were to include local authorities, the amount would be anything near 50p an elector—certainly nothing like £22. It is a marked disparity, and we believe that the Conservative party invested that extraordinary amount of money in the hope that it would achieve the registration of a large number of overseas electors in key marginal seats. It is okay for the Conservative party to do that, but it is not okay for taxpayers' money to be used for that purpose.

Mr. Tony Banks: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely correct in terms of the budget that was spent on trying to persuade people overseas to register. Would he like to tell us how it worked out, because it did not seem as if it was an especially successful campaign?
When one thinks about it, given the importance of getting people to register in a democracy, surely technology should have moved us on to a better way of getting names on to the register than going round filling it out, pieces of paper going through letter boxes and people being threatened with fines if they do not complete

the form, but no fines ever being imposed. Surely technology can find a better way of conducting registration than that.

Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend. I shall discuss his argument later, but he asked me for some specific figures. They are as follows. In 1994, there were 38.5 million electors on the electoral register in England and Wales. The number of overseas electors peaked—I suggest, as a result of that publicity campaign—at 32,000 in 1991, but it has decreased since then, almost by half, to 17,500 in 1994.
My hon. Friend makes what is indeed my last argument.

Mr. Banks: I am sorry.

Mr. Straw: No. I know that my hon. Friend makes my arguments much better than I do, so I am delighted that he should do it.

Mr. Banks: Tell Tony Blair.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes my last argument, which relates to the way in which the electoral register is put together. That needs to be improved. In our opinion, there is an overwhelming case for the review to examine the introduction of rolling registers, which would be updated each month, for far more effective publicity to be given to the registration process and for far more publicity to be given to the need for people to register, especially young people, and to the fact that, if people are on the electoral register, that data can be used only for those purposes and cannot be used to set up liability for any other tax, which was the thing that so discouraged people during the short history of the poll tax.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not unfortunate that, in recent elections, there has been a decline in the number of people voting? That ties up with what my hon. Friend says about the electoral register. In secondary schools and so on, should not far more emphasis—indeed, as much as possible—be placed on the duty of citizens to vote at election time? I wonder whether my hon. Friend has given any consideration to the possibility of introducing the system, used in Australia and perhaps elsewhere, of compulsory voting. Why not?

Mr. Straw: I have personally considered the idea of compulsory voting and come down wholly against it. I believe that, in a democracy, people have a right not to vote, just as they have a right to vote.
I offer the practical thought that the party that said that it would punish people for not voting would ensure a very high turnout in the election in which it stood on that platform, which would ensure that it was out of power and never did it. I therefore believe that the possibility of achieving that aim might be limited.

Mr. Howard: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not believe that that type of base consideration would play the slightest part in influencing his hon. Friend.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in spotting the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has higher motives than me. Of course that is correct, and I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his perspicacity. Those who hold positions similar to mine have to think about crude and vulgar matters; that is how


we get things done. On that very important issue of principle, I believe that my hon. Friend shares my view that democracy in this country would not be advantaged by making voting compulsory.
My hon. Friend raised the point about better political education in schools. When I was at school, I studied a subject called civics, which dealt with political education in an entirely non-partisan manner.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A direct grant school.

Mr. Straw: It was a direct grant school, but there is no reason why the same sort of subject could not be taught in non-direct grant schools, for God's sake. The subject gave my classmates and me an understanding of and an interest in the mechanics of politics. It is depressing that, while the voter turnout is increasing in other countries, our voter turnout is decreasing. I believe that we should consider other measures to encourage an increase in voter numbers. It is an extraordinary idea that we should vote on a Thursday. As we can now shop and bet on a Sunday, we may be able to get dispensation from the Church to vote on a Sunday. Why can we not vote on a Saturday?

Mr. Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman should not be quite so pessimistic, as the voter turnout increased at the last election.

Mr. Straw: It increased a little, but I am thinking particularly about local elections. The voter turnout at local elections has decreased and there were fewer people on the electoral register at the last election.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: Perhaps I may be permitted to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question before the hon. Lady interrupts again. Although voter turnout increased slightly at the last general election, the number of people on the electoral roll decreased because of registration problems.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the last election the number of votes in my constituency increased by 2,000 on the previous election?

Mr. Straw: Lancaster is always the exception that proves the rule, as indeed is the hon. Lady.

Mr. Howard: It is an important point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who is sitting behind me, for providing the information that the total voter turnout has increased—not simply in percentage terms—every year since 1970, if my figures are correct.

Mr. Straw: I am sure that the figures are correct because they are at the back of the Conservative party diary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North makes the valid point that voter turnout at local elections has decreased in each of the past three years. The total size of the electorate has increased, but that is not reflected in the number of people who are registered on the electoral roll. There is no doubt that under-registration is a big problem. Between 2 million and 4 million adults who should be on the electoral roll are not registered to vote. What is more—and this should appeal to Conservative

Members—when people move house, they often cease to be able to exercise their vote for a period of six to 18 months. That is also unacceptable.
This is an important debate, which goes to the heart of our democratic system. I commend the commission and the Secretary of State's recommendation. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I am very grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, although I am not absolutely certain that I am wise to do so. On this occasion, I do not necessarily speak in my capacity as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, although I always speak on behalf of my constituents. I might have made a suggestion to the commission when it conducted a review of my constituency, but it did not choose to accept our views. I shall fight another day on that issue and no doubt I shall be rather more successful.
I join the two Front-Bench spokesmen in paying tribute to the commission. It has done an exceedingly good and thorough job and I am sure that all Conservative Members would commend its work. I listened with some interest to being called, I suppose, a Conservative party apparatchik, in so far as part of my responsibilities in the Conservative party during the past three years has been to monitor the progress of the commission's work on behalf of our party.
I am being partisan. As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) knows, he and I frequently disagree and we disagreed the other evening over the methodology of the way in which the Conservative party monitors the commission as opposed to the way in which we observed that the Labour party was working.
In the Conservative party, each and every constituency has a constituency party, which is entirely autonomous. It does not take instructions from the curiously named Conservative central office or from anybody else. While we may offer advice, as we did, and give serious consideration to the issues that are raised by the commission in such an inquiry, we can do no more than say that we believe that one course of action would be the best way forward. If constituency parties do not choose to take that advice, we are completely and absolutely unable to influence them further.
To whatever extent it may be argued by the Labour party that it has a similar system, we observed that very clear instructions were given to the constituency parties and their members that there should be acceptance of the Labour party's general direction. That would not have been possible in the Conservative party, however strongly we felt about the matter. I am glad that that is the situation because, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, that is democracy at its very best. I would hate to see it changed.
I should also like to put right a myth that has grown up in the press during the past two years or so. Frequently, when the media have spoken or written about the boundary review, they have said that the Conservative party expected to gain in the region of 21 seats as a result of the current boundary commission review. That figure was suggested by an ex-House of Commons colleague after the 1987 election and was based on the 1987 election results.
After the 1992 general election, that same colleague, who is sadly no longer in the House, quite correctly revised downwards his view of the likely number of seats that might accrue to the Conservative party, all things being equal, as a result of the forthcoming boundary commission review. His revision took that figure down to about 10 extra seats for the Conservative party. We do not believe, given how the distribution has gone under the current review, that we have failed to live up to that expectation.
On our calculations, taking into account that there are five new seats in England and three other seats—two in Wales and possibly one in Northern Ireland—making eight in total, we do not believe that we have done especially badly. We do not therefore allow or acknowledge the statement by the press that the Labour party has done very much better than the Conservative party. We believe that about eight seats will produce new, additional Conservative Members of Parliament. That is an important point to make.
I have another observation about the course of the recent boundary commission review. It looks very much as though the review has been much more wide ranging than we had originally anticipated. In other words, considerable changes have been made to constituencies throughout England. Those changes have been far-reaching, especially in the counties. They were not so far-reaching in metropolitan and urban areas.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) straight-facedly suggested—I do not accept this—that the commission was persuaded by the excellence of the arguments put forward by the Opposition as opposed to those put forward by other parties. I would say, however, that the decisions on metropolitan and urban areas depended—the hon. Member for Blackburn made this point at the end of his speech—on who was on the electoral register and the reasons they were or were not on it.
I question whether we should rely too much on the number of people who did or did not register and who did or did not vote based on the fact that they were trying to avoid being caught for one tax or another or for one purpose or another. It does not seem an especially strong or effective argument. Indeed, I am slightly surprised that it was taken into account by anyone.

Mr. Tony Banks: The commission did not take only the numbers into account; arguments about communities, links and other factors were brought into play. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was right to say that we in the Labour party have been taught to believe that the Conservative party machine was much more efficient than ours. Many of us were pleasantly surprised—some would say shocked—by how efficient the Labour party machine and its arguments turned out to be.

Dame Angela Rumbold: That may be a matter on which to congratulate the Labour party. Of course arguments about local communities are taken into account, but the Labour party has mentioned frequently that it is concerned that people have not registered because they were afraid of certain taxes. The community charge was cited as a specific example of a tax that a number of people in urban and metropolitan areas were trying to avoid. The argument I have described is poor and should not be brought to bear today.
I want now to make a more general point which I know several colleagues will also wish to raise. Important questions arise from the electoral quotas and the over and under-representation not only in England but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I accept that today's debate relates only to the redistribution of English seats, but it is none the less relevant to draw my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's attention to the fact that, if he is to undertake a review, he must include in it his colleagues from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that the House does not fall into the trap of continuing the imbalance of seats between the various countries. That would be unacceptable, as was pointed out in the 1991 report of the Hansard Society's commission on election campaigns. It is a legitimate point to draw to the Government's attention.
In 1992, before the general election, there were 651 Members of Parliament. If the previous reviews had been based on equal electoral quotas, there should have been 629, because Scotland would have been entitled to 57 instead of 72 and Wales would have been entitled to 32 rather than 38. The latest review has done little to make amends. There is a strong feeling among Members of Parliament who represent English seats that that is unacceptable and merits further consideration.
Even in England, as colleagues will no doubt point out, there are great variations. London continues to be allocated more seats than any other part of the country because the electoral quota is assessed borough by borough, unlike the shire counties. It has 74 seats, which is, admittedly, a considerable reduction of the number in 1979.
None the less, our calculations, which were done before the review, led us to feel that London needed to lose, a further three seats if it was to equate much more reasonably with the rest. The fact that the three seats were not removed from the equation means that there are discrepancies, which have been remarked on by my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Finchley (Mr. Booth).
Islington, South and Finsbury has an electorate of 54,443 and Islington, North has an electorate of 55,650. Bromley has three seats with electorates as follows: Beckenham, 73,653; Bromley and Chislehurst 75,388; Orpington 82,032. There is a significant discrepancy and little equity in the number of people whom individual Members of Parliament are to represent in the Greater London area. I know that the commission did not consider Greater London as a whole, but that issue must be taken into account and stressed if there is to be another review because it gives rise to considerable unrest.
There are discrepancies between other constituencies, of course. For example, Copeland in Cumbria has an electorate of just over 55,500, but that is due to special geographical conditions that are taken into account by the boundary commission. However, those special geographical considerations may lead to questions not only in English constituencies but elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
I have no difficulty in supporting the recommendations, which are thorough. As is the case with every other inquiry and review undertaken by an independent body, we have asked people to perform a task that requires the patience of Job. I certainly would not have wanted to be in their position. I know perfectly well that one cannot satisfy everyone. Indeed, I felt this afternoon that I was


likely to get more sympathy from Opposition Members than from Conservative colleagues simply because of the special responsibilities that I have held and because of my awareness of the political realities of working with friends as well as Labour colleagues. However, I believe that the issues that I have raised are worthy of study in any future review.
I do not believe that the Conservative party as a whole has cause for complaint. I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will hear any complaints about the outcome of the review other than those relating to specific constituencies. I think that the commission has done a very good job and that it deserves our commendation.
One hears a great deal from those who spend their lives—academics and others—trying to work out precisely what would happen if everyone voted the way that they voted three, eight or 12 years ago. Having been redistributed from one seat to another, those people will not make as much of a difference as they did in the place they first voted. As a result, the Labour, Conservative or Liberal party, or whichever party those people decide to mark up, would get an electoral advantage of 0.6 per cent. or 0.2 per cent if there were an election tomorrow, calculated on the basis of the same number of people going to the polls.
One could spend a great deal of time playing with the figures and being academic about them but, as one who has been involved in local and general elections for the past 20 years, I can say that the reality is that the party that is elected is the party that pleases the electorate most. Each and every one of us will discover that the next time there is a general election. It will not be decided by academics playing with points on a diagram or by boundary changes. We would do well to reflect on those points this afternoon.

Mr. Clive Soley: My reason for intervening in the debate is to draw attention to the size of the House of Commons and the way in which the instructions that we give the boundary commission affect that. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) told the Home Secretary that we should debate the issue, as I consider it profoundly important.
First, let me make a few comments about the boundary commission's work in west London. I congratulate the boundary commission on the way in which it has carried out its work. It was very fair. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, at one stage we in the Labour party believed that we would end up with a net loss of some 20 seats. In fact, the outcome was broadly politically neutral and that is to the boundary commission's credit.
Certainly, there was a major debate in my area between the various political parties. The problem for the Conservative party was that local parties gave conflicting evidence. One local Conservative party branch agreed with me about the proposed changes; another disagreed. As we know from our experience in 1983, if a party gives conflicting evidence it tends to lose out.
I have to stress the importance of the boundary commission locally. I have represented Hammersmith for 16 years. At the next election, the constituency of Hammersmith will cease to exist. The southern wards of my constituency will go into the new seat of Hammersmith and Fulham. The other five wards, including the one where I live, will go into the new Ealing, Acton and Shepherds Bush seat. If, as I hope and anticipate, I am successful in representing the area after the next election, I shall represent Ealing, Acton and Shepherds Bush instead of Hammersmith.
Although I understand the need for the change, I regret not being able to continue to represent Hammersmith. It is a remarkably good area to represent—a mixed inner-city area—and I have enjoyed it immensely. I know it well and I shall miss the southern part of my constituency. However, I recognise that the change is necessary because of the small size of my constituency.
At the time of the review, I took the view that it would have been better to move the boundary into north Kensington, not least because the Notting Hill carnival would have been in my constituency. One could hardly have a better carnival. It is a quite remarkable event and I recommend it. When David Gardner, who also deserves congratulations, put it to me that it would not be logical, he was right: the only way to make sense of the surrounding areas was for Shepherds Bush to be linked with Ealing, Acton, with which it also has a number of connections.
My main point is about the size of constituencies. My constituency had to change because I have an electorate of about 47,000. Although I had some quite innovative and exciting thoughts about representing Hammersmith in the winter and teaming up with Western Isles to become the Member for Western Isles in the summer in order to improve the figures, the logic was that the size of the constituency had to be increased. It is one of the smallest constituencies in the country—14th, to be precise. The electorate will increase from 47,000 to 83,000 and my work load will double overnight.
In general, Members of Parliament work very hard. If hon. Members do their constituency work well, they will know that the burden of that work is considerable, especially if they represent inner-city areas. An increase in the electorate from 47,000 to 83,000 will produce a dramatic increase in the work load; I shall have to change my approach to the work and the area.
As has been said, there are 651 Members of Parliament. That will increase by nine or 10. For some years, I have felt that one of the most important reforms that we can make in the House is rather painful—recognising that too many Members sit in the House of Commons. In my view, we should reduce our number over a period from 650 to nearer 450. Before somebody jumps up and asks, "Will you volunteer to be one of the 200 who go?", I should like to say that the quick answer is no. There is, however, a more sophisticated answer and I shall come to that shortly.

Mr. Tony Banks: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said, particularly about our work load, which I shall discuss if I manage to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I add some extra ammunition to my hon. Friend's excellent argument? The United States Senate


and House of Representatives have a total membership of 535, representing a population significantly larger than that of our small country.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What follows from my recommendation, which I hope we shall debate in future years—perhaps between Front Benchers on either side of the House, among the parties and in the Chamber—would dramatically affect how the House of Commons works and the quality of our work.
Members of Parliament have not had a good press recently, but let us look at the good side. Most Members of Parliament work extremely hard. They dedicate themselves largely to the work of their constituents and at the same time try to address national and international issues. It is profoundly important work, but even with the increase a couple of years ago, the allowance that we receive is still too little.
Like all Members of Parliament, I receive enough to employ one secretary and a part-time worker. If, as at present, my secretary goes on holiday, I depend on being able to afford to bring in someone to work two days a week. The rest of the time, unless I am in the office, people are likely to get the answerphone. That is not a good service.
Let us look at the other end of the scale and consider an issue that is profoundly important to all Members of Parliament, particularly Back Benchers. I understand from the Speaker's Office that a Member of Parliament can expect to speak only four times a year in a major debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should ask themselves how much time they spend in the Chamber trying to speak in a debate, having no chance of doing so and eventually leaving the House without having spoken on what may be important to their constituents or on issues of national or international importance.
It is not desirable for Members of Parliament to be in the absurd position of trying to speak in debates, and getting in only four times a year. The figure of four or five times a year often means that a Member may make a speech of no more than 10 or 15 minutes' duration. I was always opposed to the 10-minute rule which limits Back Benchers' speeches to 10 minutes, not because I do not think it is possible to make a good speech in 10 minutes—often the best speeches are short—but because there are times when one cannot do that and, more important, the 10-minute rule impacts heavily on Back Benchers who have not made Privy Council status or been on the Front Bench or are fairly new to the House. Those are the ones who get squeezed out. At the end of the debate, the 10-minute slot often becomes a five-minute slot. If we want to be more effective, we have to give ourselves more time here.
Hon. Members should ask themselves another question. I tried to get information and was unable to do so because I gather that the Speaker's Office cannot analyse the information in this way. How many times on average can hon. Members expect to get called for a question? Some people seem remarkably lucky at Prime Minister's Question Time and their names pop up again and again. Why those people do not win the national lottery is beyond me. Perhaps they do, and are just not owning up, but in my experience the number of times one gets into the top slot for asking a question at Prime Minister's questions is very small. One is lucky to get in once or twice a year. On the same basis, questions to Ministers are not likely to be called

or to get into that part of the Order Paper that enables a Member to make what may be an important point. If Members of Parliament are to be effective, we need to give them more time to have an impact in the House, and that means in the Chamber, not just in Committee.
If we reduced the size of the House from 651 to about 450, there would need to be a dramatic increase in the resources available to hon. Members to do their jobs. Those resources would not necessarily be paid in cash. I want to employ people to do my research and to provide me information that I need. I have spent 10 of my 16 years here as a Front-Bench spokesman. When I was the shadow Minister for housing and planning and the Government used to table several hundred amendments after the Committee stage of a Bill, to be dealt with on the Floor of the House, I was expected to deal with the amendments with one part-time researcher. That is not the way to get good legislation.
I ended up having to take my own view of the wisdom or otherwise of a particular amendment, and relying on what outsiders had to say—local authorities, housebuilders' associations and groups of planners. They would write to me with their views on an amendment; I would come up with a synopsis, form my own view and then decide whether the Labour party should officially oppose or support an amendment. That is no way to do business. It leads to bad legislation which can come back and hit one in the eye. People on the receiving end of bad legislation do not appreciate it. One has only to think of the poll tax, the Child Support Agency, and so on—

Mr. John Carlisle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the number of seats should go down, but he also has to think about the implications for government. Who knows? If a thunderbolt strikes the country in two years' time, he may find himself a Minister. Does he agree that, if our numbers fall, the number of Ministers should also be reduced—dramatically? Of course, if it is proportionate, Back Benchers will have no greater chance of making speeches of the length that the hon. Gentleman wants; but he must deal with the fact that the whole machinery of government should be reduced too.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I trust that we will not begin a wide-ranging constitutional debate. The debate is beginning to stray far from the actual subject before us.

Mr. Soley: I appreciate that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am describing how the boundary commission's work results in the House growing ever bigger. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and the Home Secretary that this whole subject should be discussed—but not now, I acknowledge. I will not pursue what the hon. Gentleman had to say, except to give the view that some of the consequences will entail devolved government. That is one reason why I favour regional government so strongly. I would be happy to pursue that subject—[Interruption.]—but I will not do so on this occasion.
Because our constituencies are relatively small, our constituents often treat Members of Parliament as councillors. I have always taken the view that constituents with council problems should go in the first instance to their councillors. I do not always make myself popular in my constituency when I insist on that. I am disturbed


when people are given the impression that councillors do not matter—that they need not bother to vote for them because they can go straight to their Member of Parliament. That is why I ask people to see their councillors first.
If we act on that suggestion and instruct the boundary commission to reduce the size of the House over time, Members of Parliament will be called on to perform as substitute councillors less and less often. That will be good for councillors, constituents and Members of Parliament alike.
I recognise, of course, that reducing the size of the House from 650 to 450 will mean people losing their jobs. I always used to be asked whether I was volunteering, and the answer was always no. The process should take place over a period. Whereas now the boundary commission's instructions always seem to lead to the House getting bigger, I suggest that we begin to reverse that trend so that the numbers start to fall, over time. We are all used to the painful processes of selection conferences, new boundaries, and so on, and we would eventually reach the target. It is important that we do so—for the House, for the quality of debate, and for the status of Members of Parliament and of councillors.
We should all start discussing the issue now. I used to be told that, if we took this route, the Labour party would lose every election. Interestingly, that is no longer usually said—although Conservative Members may be beginning to say it. When our party was doing badly and we were reduced to our heartlands, the saying may have been true, but no party need lose an election just because of the size of constituencies.
If my proposals involve changing the voting system, so be it—we shall have to face up to that. Proportional representation is not all it is cracked up to be, but no great issue of principle is involved. We simply need to get the system right.
I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have not strayed too far from the report. I end with a strong plea: it is vital to the workings of the House and to the roles of Members of Parliament and of councillors that we reduce the number of Members to about 450 over a period of years.

Mr. John Marshall: I listened with some interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who suggested reducing the size of the House to 450 Members, but who preceded that suggestion with a complaint that his electorate—although he need not assume that he is going to win—after the election might number 83,000. If we reduced our numbers to 450, that would be the norm, not the exception.
I suppose that the boundary commission is rather like the cricket umpire. When he raises his finger, the player is meant to walk without questioning, as our cricketers do. Similarly, when the commission says that a ward is to be changed, we are meant to say amen to that. As the Home Secretary said, no one doubts the independence and integrity of the commission, but we sometimes doubt its logic.
In 1982, when I lived in the constituency of Ealing, North, the ward that I represented on Ealing council was transferred from Ealing, North to Ealing, Acton, even

though the boundary commission received 1,500 representations saying that the ward should remain part of Ealing, North. The commission said, "No, you don't understand; you only live here. Of course it should be in Ealing, Acton." Now, under this review, the ward is being transferred back to Ealing, North from Ealing, Acton, and the commission claims that that is only logical. Apparently, what the commission takes away in one review it can put back in the next, and the logic that accompanies some of its reviews is less than 100 per cent.
I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith about the number of constituencies. There always seems to be an inbuilt bias in these reviews that results in increasing the size of the House ever so slightly. The boundary commission is told that the number of Members should not be substantially more or less than 613. When these various reviews are completed, there will be about 660 Members—8 per cent. above the target set for the commission. Every post-war boundary commission review has ended up increasing the size of the House.
Where will this stop? When will the term "substantially more" come into play? When will the commission decide not to create any more net constituencies? I hope that the Minister will deal with that question at the end of the debate, and that any future inquiry will take it into account. I see no case for increasing the size of the House yet again.
The role of the boundary commission is to equalise the number of votes in each constituency. We have heard the hon. Member for Hammersmith complain that the electorate in the constituency of which Hammersmith will be a part is to rise from 47,000 to 83,000. 1 can understand that complaint. If the hon. Gentleman represented a seat in Scotland, he would be taking up a new constituency, Glasgow, Shettleston, with an electorate of 48,792, or an old one, Paisley, North, with 49,418.
In London, there are the constituencies of Islington, North, with an electorate of 56,517, and of Islington, South and Finsbury, with 55,912. In London, the boundary commission has failed abysmally to equalise the value of votes. A vote in Islington will be worth much more than one in Croydon, Bromley or Hammersmith. The hon. Member for Hammersmith will have an electorate that is more than 59 per cent. greater than that of Islington, North or of Islington, South and Finsbury. There is an electoral quota of 69,281. The hon. Gentleman's constituency will be more than 20 per cent. above that quota. Other constituencies in London will be more than 20 per cent. below it. London has not been reviewed properly by the commission.
It is interesting to compare English seats with those in Scotland. I recognise that constituencies such as Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland must have a small electorate because they are geographically remote. However, there is no reason why urban constituencies in Glasgow should be significantly different from urban constituencies in London. My constituents wonder why my constituency is being chopped in two when Glasgow, Shettleston; Paisley, North; Glasgow, Govan; Glasgow, Cathcart; Glasgow, Pollok; Glasgow, Rutherglen; Glasgow, Baillieston; and Glasgow, Maryhill will have electorates of 48,000, 49,000, 50,000, 50,578, 51,411, 51,749, 52,225 and 52,584 respectively. The big one, boys, is Glasgow, Anniesland, with 52,624. Why should


seats in London with similar electorates to those to which I have referred—the new constituencies that will be created in Scotland—be dismembered?
We are trying to equalise the value of votes throughout the country and the commission has signally failed to do so. I hope that those who advocate devolution will examine the figures. They give the green light to changing the number of Members who sit in this place if we ever have regional government.
Many of us think that the London secretariats were set up in a thoroughly unsatisfactory way and that they should not be maintained for future boundary reviews. We were told at the beginning of the exercise that the commission would, with the exception of the London borough of Richmond, regard the Thames as a barrier to pairing London boroughs under the secretariats. What will happen? Secretariat No. 5—Barking and Havering, north of the Thames—will link with Bexley, Greenwich and Lewisham, south of the Thames. That is an example of the commission breaking its own rules. Given the way in which the secretariats in London were linked, London will end up with 74 Members rather than 71. When the commission next turns its attention to London, I hope that it will not assume automatically that the current secretariats are satisfactory for any further review.
The commission is bound to have regard for the size and shape of constituencies. I hope that I have shown that it has had little regard for the size of constituencies—we would not have such huge discrepancies within London if it had. The shape of some London constituencies also shows that the commission has had little regard for that consideration. If there is a Division, I have told my Whip that I shall have great difficulty in supporting the report. If I am absent, he will not be completely surprised.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House, for not being in my place at the beginning of the debate. I was detained on Select Committee business.
It is a pleasure to be able to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). I think that it is the first time that I have agreed with one of his speeches. No doubt it will be the last. During the time that I have been in the Chamber, he is the first Member to draw attention to the clear anomalies and flaws in the report. In his spirited consideration of the anomalies in the sizes of the constituencies, he set out the principal problems that my colleagues and I have with the report. Many of the failings of the report are common with the failings of previous boundary commission reports. It will come as no surprise to anyone in the Chamber to hear me say from the Liberal Democrat Bench that my colleagues and I regard the principle of shuffling the shapes and sizes of constituencies as entirely unsatisfactory when what is needed is a comprehensive review of the entire electoral system.
The way in which we are debating the issues and the way in which they have been taken up in the television interviews that I have watched lead me to think that we have rather missed the point. It has been an unedifying spectacle watching the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) reflecting in the nation's television studios on an electoral process in which their

parties have had more or less success in effectively gerrymandering the boundaries. That approach is neither here nor there, but it would seem that Labour has had more success than the Conservatives had anticipated that it would have at the start of the process. That is not a consideration that the House should be bringing to bear. In fairness, the right hon. Lady made it clear that she was speaking in the light of the responsibilities that she undertakes for her party. It is for the House to consider the more technical arguments that the hon. Member for Hendon, South has raised.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that the Liberal Democrats do not take any interest in the political complexions of the constituencies concerned?

Mr. Harvey: That was not my point. I am not criticising other parties for taking such an interest. They should do so, and their local officials are bound to do so. We, however, should be making an objective assessment of the success or otherwise of the process. Other arguments need to be considered. We understand that those who speak as party officials have undertaken a job of work for their parties, and have rightly set about it. It is for the Chamber, in debating an order that has been put before it, to consider some of the technical flaws that I think are to be found in the report.
The most obvious flaw is to be found in the size of constituencies—a point to which the hon. Member for Hendon, South referred. Several hon. Members have said that, as a result of the review, in London, for the first time, seats will cross borough boundaries. That should offer scope for getting seats that are far more nearly balanced and matched in size than those that are proposed.
There is sometimes a case for rural seats to have fewer constituents because of their wider geographical spread. That does not apply to the constituencies of the London borough of Brent, which will return three Members each representing slightly more that 50,000 constituents. The Isle of Wight will be one seat with 102,000 constituents. That electorate will be represented by one Member. There is something horribly wrong when one seat can be twice the size of another in terms of the electorate that is represented, without the argument of a scattered or sparse population being brought to bear.
I shall dwell briefly on the Isle of Wight. The commission issued a press release stating that it would reappraise recommendations for constituencies throughout England
to ensure fair and consistent consideration of one area compared with another.
It seems that the commission overlooked that when it came to the Isle of Wight. I hope that it will make a special case of the Isle of Wight for separate consideration, as it did of Milton Keynes during the previous Parliament.
I very much welcome the fact that the Home Secretary announced at the start of the debate that, after the boundary review has been completed, there would be further consideration of the rules that govern the work of the commission in its decisions about constituency boundaries. There is quite clearly a need for some further review of the rules and it would be better for those considerations to be undertaken at a separate time from a boundary review. As I have already mentioned, this is the first time that London borough boundaries have been


crossed. I personally welcome that. I think that some of the London boroughs are somewhat artificial creations of the 1964 local government reorganisation in London, of which the London borough of Barnet, which is absolutely enormous, is an example in point. It might also be an opportunity to look at the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who said that, in each successive review, the number of Members being returned to this place is getting larger, and that nothing more than lip service—indeed, not even that—is being paid to the requirement to return a considerably smaller number of Members than we shall see in the next Parliament.
As well as the issue of numbers, there is the whole question of the representation of natural communities, a number of which have been ridden over roughshod in the process that we have just seen. Liverpool is having yet another dramatic shake-up, although it seems to have had one each time the boundary commission creates a review of any sort. In other areas, the growth in population has quite rightly resulted in new seats being created in some counties. In Dorset, for example, where a new Mid Dorset seat has been created, it would be fair to say that our local party officials have greeted the new boundary there with considerable optimism, because they think that it will help, for the first time in a general election, to bring more Liberal Democrat representation in that county.
There has, however, been a complete difference in the way in which some parts of the country have been looked at. For example, Swindon, in Wiltshire, has been cut in half, whereas Colchester, in Essex, which, traditionally, has had two seats—Colchester, South and Maldon; and Colchester, North—is to have only one. In the new boundary that has been drawn up, there is to be one central Colchester seat, with the hinterland going off into the various seats around it, so there is a slight inconsistency in the way in which different areas have been dealt with. Perhaps the rules that are to be reviewed might give more general guidance as to how those examples should be dealt with.
In addition, there are various other objections about the shape of particular seats, and the fact that communities have been chopped and changed. The hon. Member for Blackburn referred, rightly, to some of the extraordinary names that are given to constituencies and that cast little light on where they are to be found geographically.
I must momentarily refer to the fact that the arbitrary line that can be drawn by the boundary commissioner can have quite serious consequences on the political outcome at the election. In a particularly tight election, some of the more arbitrary bits of line drawing could have a quite dramatic effect on the composition of the House of Commons that came back afterwards. In those circumstances, we could almost have government by geographical accident rather than by popular vote.

Mr. John Carlisle: I think that the hon. Gentleman's last remark needs further investigation. He was suggesting that the commission should take into political consideration what he called the arbitrary line and that that could affect the way in which the election was going.

Surely he must appreciate that the commission is totally non-political, and everybody in the House—apart from the Liberal party, perhaps—accepts that.

Mr. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstood my point. I was not for one moment suggesting that the decisions made by the boundary commission should be drawn up on the basis of a political calculation of the outcome. I was simply commenting that, as a matter of chance, the outcome of a casual flick of a pen here or there on a map could have a profound impact on the outcome of an election result. The basic point is that natural communities should be recognised and represented as such, and I hope that more consistent guidance can be given to the commission in the rules that are to be reviewed after the report has been concluded. Therefore, if there is consistency in the way in which the marginal decisions are made, it is less likely that anyone will turn around afterwards and feel that he has been a victim of an accident rather than the beneficiary of a consistent pattern of community representation.
The hon. Member for Blackburn referred, quite rightly, to the fact that, as a result of the boundary review, the number of votes that it will take to return a Conservative Member to this place will be less than that required to return a Labour Member. What he conveniently did not go on to point out, however, was that it will require a vastly larger number to return a Liberal Democrat Member. To take the argument further, the Green party, and other parties that are totting up quite a respectable number of votes nationally, get no representation here whatever.
When one looks further at the under-representation of women, ethnic minorities and so on, one realises that our whole electoral system has one conspicuous deficiency in that it simply does not give a true representation here of the make-up of our society or our communities. Nor, indeed, does it represent, in the balance of Parliament, the will of the public. How can it be right that a Government can be elected with only one in three of the British people's votes and yet have a majority in the House? How can it be right that, for 16 years, they have simply pushed through—steamrollered—every single one of their proposals, all bar one or two, on the basis of a mandate that comprises little more than one third of those who are entitled to vote? That is the biggest deficiency.
The whole business of those boundary reviews, which come along and change the boundaries on which elections are fought every 10 or 15 years, is really only tinkering at the edges of a system that is comprehensively and totally incapable of returning to this place a representation that accords with the wishes of the British people. That is why I very much welcome the commitment that was given by the leader of the Labour party: that any future Labour Government will take to a referendum the whole issue of electoral reform, which is long overdue. I hope that, whatever system of electoral reform might be arrived at, it will return a Chamber that represents much more accurately the political wish and the composition of society and the community at large.
A reformed electoral system would also ensure that the adversarial cockpit, which the Chamber too often becomes, would give way to a position where a larger number of parties were more prepared to recognise each other's policies, priorities and philosophies. There could be greater co-operation, in the national good, rather than


the adversarial system that we currently have and that, too often, puts party priorities above those of the nation as a whole.
It has been more than 160 years since the great Reform Act 1832, as it was known, was passed. It is time that the House began to consider the major constitutional reforms that are necessary rather than just updating and modernising a system that is fatally flawed at its heart and of which the report today is just another example in a long line.

Mr. Peter Luff: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) need not hold his breath. Although I shall be expressing serious reservations about the work of the boundary commission in my area of England, if it comes to a vote this evening, I shall not be voting against the order, but I do hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will take the opportunity, for the reasons that I shall set out in my speech, to look again at some of the recommendations, and he has a specific opportunity to change them in some respects.
It was right that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) emphasised the growing concern felt among English Members and English electors about the imbalance in representation in this place between hon. Members from Scotland, Wales and England. That is an acute problem now, which is causing a growing sense of resentment.
If—heaven forfend—the Opposition were to form a Government at some future stage and implement their half-baked plans for devolution to the regions of England and, above all, to Scotland and Wales, a fundamental rethink about that imbalance would be demanded. I hope that we shall hear a commitment from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman that if a Labour Government implemented devolution for Scotland and Wales they would reduce the proportion of seats for those two countries in this place.
I have a deep reservation, which seems to be widely shared in the House, about the steadily increasing numbers of Members that successive boundary commission reviews produce. I believe that as a result of the review before us the number will rise from 651 to 659, of which England's share will rise from 524 to 529.
At a time when we read that Members of Parliament are so unpopular—apparently we are second only to journalists in the unpopularity stakes—it seems more than a trifle perverse to create more of us. But be that as it may, we seem to be set on that course. However, for the sake of the good running of this place, if for no other reason, we should seek, not to increase but to reduce the number of Members of Parliament, and to give that reduced number increased resources with which to do their job.
As we have been reminded, a precedent for having 659 seats has been set, and indeed exceeded, in the past. A useful note from the Library reminds us that
Between 1885 and 1918 the Commons had 670 MPs as there were 101 Irish MPs a number maintained by Gladstone in the 1885 Reform Act despite the fall in Irish population. This Act also awarded Scotland 12 extra seats in compensation, bringing its total to 70 (excluding university seats). However with the departure of Southern Ireland following the Government of Ireland Act 1920 the number of seats in the Commons fell back to 615 (including

university seats) as Northern Ireland was represented by 12 Members (excluding the 1 university seat). Both the Speakers Conferences of 1916/1917 and 1994 had wanted the Commons size to be stabilised yet it has increased from 615 in 1935 to 659 today"—
that is, after the order takes effect.
A county such as Hereford and Worcester provides the House with an opportunity to move in the opposite direction, because we should not increase the number of seats in my county from seven to eight.
I have done my best to understand the curious electoral arithmetic that leads to the process of steadily increasing representation in the House. In the boundary commission report for England we read about the
Theoretical Entitlement rounding up point
and the
Rounded number of seats".
My grasp of A-level maths was fairly sound—I got a reasonably good grade—and I was taught that one could not, as the boundary commission does as a result of the formula, round up 1.33 to 2. Moreover, one cannot round up 2.4 to 3, 3.429 to 4, 4.444 to 5, 5.455 to 6, 6.462 to 7 or, as has happened for Hereford and Worcester, 7.467 to 8. All those numbers should have been rounded down. If we could introduce a formula that enabled the boundary commission to do that, we would succeed in reducing the number of Members of Parliament—a result to be desired.
In Hereford and Worcester the result of those calculations is that our average number of electors per seat is 67,326–1,587 fewer than the English average. If I were to take you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on a journey along the M40 from my constituency to the House, we should first pass through Warwickshire, where the average number of electors per seat is 76,257–8,931 more than the average in Hereford and Worcester. In Oxfordshire, through which we would pass next, the average reaches 71,196 electors per seat—3,870 more than the average in Hereford and Worcester. In Buckinghamshire, rather nearer to London, the figure comes down to a more respectable 69,155—in line with the national quota set by the boundary commission, but 1,829 more than the figure for my county.
I contend that the boundary commission should not have introduced an extra seat in Hereford and Worcester. The report says:
We were mindful that the introduction of an extra seat in Hereford and Worcester would make some major changes within the County inevitable".
It also, rightly, reminds the House that
some 6,000 electors currently in the Borough of Bromsgrove will be transferred to the West Midlands at about the time this report is published. We decided that we should conduct an interim review as soon as practicable after 1 April 1995 to realign the Bromsgrove constituency boundary with the revised County boundary.
I understand the way in which the Act governing the boundary commission was set up, and the commissioners were forced into the ludicrous position that means that we are debating an order and a report that are already out of date, and are the subject of an immediate review.
Major change, which the boundary commission report admits that it is having to implement in my county, is unwelcome. The commissioners do not seem to acknowledge that fact, because the report says:
the disruption and severance of established constituency links if eight seats were allocated, would not be severe.


I have to tell them that they are simply wrong. The consequences have been extremely severe.
My rural wards from the district of Wychavon—Spetchley, Upton Snodsbury, Pinvin, Drakes Broughton, the Lenches and Inkberrow—feel especially sore about that, because successive boundary commission reviews have moved them around with an arbitrariness that I find shocking. It also causes real practical problems for the political parties in building lasting relationships, and associations and constituency parties that can stand the test of time. I resent the way in which those wards have been treated in the past and continue to be treated in the review.
Specifically about the city of Worcester, the report says:
We noted that the electorate of the City of Worcester was 63,622, close to the county average. We therefore proposed a Worcester seat which would be coterminous with the City".
It also discusses at some length the delicious culinary ideas of "doughnutting" and "sandwiches", and describes what drove the commission to make certain decisions in particular parts of the country:
On several occasions we provisionally recommended a constituency which comprised the town, with surrounding areas forming another constituency or constituencies. This arrangement was known as the 'doughnut'. In other areas we provisionally recommended that the town be split into two, often using a distinctive feature such as a river as a boundary, with each part being added to a rural hinterland. This arrangement was known as the 'sandwich'…
We had no single formula or policy for choosing between the alternatives but tried to find the best scheme for each town…
Factors which we take into account in considering the geography of an area include estuaries, major roads and other lines of communication such as railways and rivers which are easily identifiable borders but not necessarily physical barriers".
So sandwiches are entirely acceptable to the boundary commission.
I have a philosophical problem with some of the arrangements, because I believe that many of our county towns and cities have a close and intimate relationship with their rural hinterland. That is true for Worcester, and its Member of Parliament must understand that close relationship. I am concerned, however, that town and country are now growing further apart in our country. That is not a welcome development.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the commission seems generally to have favoured the doughnut model rather than the sandwich? What are his thoughts on that? Would not the doughnut model reflect more truthfully the integrity of that relationship between the town and its surrounding villages?

Mr. Luff: No—precisely the opposite. My concern is that if a Member of Parliament represents an entirely urban seat with a rural sea around it, as happens with Worcester, a gulf of incomprehension will grow, and there will be a tendency not to understand the intimate links that exist between town and country.
For example, we have a cattle market in Worcester, which demonstrates the importance of the surrounding agricultural economy, but there are only about three farms within the city boundary. Typically, the entrepreneurs

who create jobs in the city of Worcester live in the surrounding villages. The housing needs of south Worcestershire cannot be met by Worcester city alone but are met by the districts of Wychavon and Malvern Hills too.
Employment and commuting patterns are subtle and sophisticated in our county. Many people live in the villages and come into the city to work. Others live in the city and commute far afield, perhaps to Birmingham. The interest that we all have in a sound environmental policy and in well-planned rural areas for recreational purposes also militates in favour of a sandwich approach, not a doughnut approach, to electoral arrangements. Worcester, however, has been doughnutted. It should have been sandwiched because, to carry the gastronomic metaphor further, sandwiches breed mutual understanding; doughnuts breed misunderstanding.

Mr. John Marshall: And fat.

Mr. Luff: As my hon. Friend rightly reminds me, doughnuts also breed fat.
Another issue causes me concern in relation to the review: the Inkberrow rural ward is being arbitrarily lumped in with an urban region. It will form a tiny minority of that region and its interests stand to be overlooked as a result. In 1991, that ward had 2,415 voters. It contains a number of villages, of which the two largest are Inkberrow and Cookhill.
According to the boundary commission's provisional recommendations, it received quite a lot of representations about the proposed inclusion of Inkberrow in a new Redditch constituency, although it is coy on the exact figure. It says:
Our provisional proposal to include Inkberrow with the whole of Redditch Borough to form the Redditch seat was an attempt to create a seat which would have an electorate of 60,193, well below the electoral quota, but higher than the Redditch Borough wards alone…The Assistant Commissioner considered that there was a choice between creating an undersized seat or incorporating Inkberrow to create a seat of just sufficient size. He weighed up the arguments put to him both for and against our provisional recommendation, and on balance decided there was no good reason to propose an alternative arrangement to what we had provisionally proposed".
The commission, however, had the integrity to admit that, among the representations on its revised recommendations, was a petition containing 198 signatures objecting to the proposal to include Inkberrow in the new Redditch constituency. That figure must be borne against the total number of representations received from the whole county of Hereford and Worcester to the boundary commission's original recommendations; those representations totalled 614. It seems that the boundary commission is swayed more by the number of letters it receives than by the people who are aggrieved by its findings. That is a matter of considerable concern.
Frankly, the Conservative party missed a trick in some parts of the country. The Labour party organised a letter-writing campaign—a mass of individual letters dictated from some central party machine—and we did not do the same.

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend should add the point about petitions. Most of us in this place on both sides of the House agree that petitions are sometimes, to say the least, spurious. Names such as Julius Caesar and others have appeared on petitions that I have received. We


take little notice of such names, but the commission has taken enormous notice of petitions. I wonder whether it had the time to go through the names and to ascertain whether the people petitioning it were relevant to the constituency concerned.

Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend's intervention suggests a certain disparity of experience around the country. My complaint is that the Inkberrow petition appears to have been ignored totally by the boundary commission.

Mr. Carlisle: Was Julius Caesar on it?

Mr. Luff: I do not think that he was. I believe that the petition was organised by the parish council. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to call into question the integrity of the clerk to Inkberrow parish council.
Inkberrow is a distinct community, separate from Redditch. I do not wish to disparage Redditch or its people, but it is a new town, something of a cuckoo in the Worcestershire nest, and the people of Inkberrow live in a predominantly rural area. It is the home of the Old Bull public house, the model for the Bull in "The Archers" at Ambridge. There is a sense of outrage among the people of Inkberrow at their totally arbitrary inclusion in an otherwise urban constituency.
The parish council, the district council and my friend Councillor Gordon Moone have expressed that outrage to me. Wychavon district council has expressed deep concern at the proposal. It means that just one ward of Wychavon district council will be in the parliamentary constituency of Redditch but all its other wards will be in two other hon. Members' constituencies. There will unnecessarily be three constituencies instead of two.
The people of Inkberrow ask themselves what the consequences of the proposal will be. I know that the boundary commission's report says that there is no read across to local authority boundaries, but their deep concern is that the logic of the decision will inevitably flow in that direction and that they will find themselves sucked into the urban region of Redditch for planning purposes as well, which they deeply resent.
Inkberrow looks to Worcester and Evesham, not to Redditch. It has no natural community with Redditch. Evidence was presented to the boundary commission, which the assistant commissioner chose to believe, that Inkberrow did look to Redditch, but that evidence came entirely from the Labour party, which recognised that its arguments for an eighth seat in the county and its chance of gaining some marginal seats would be diminished if the assistant commissioner decided that he could not recommend the creation of a Redditch seat. It was prepared to endorse the provisional recommendations simply for partisan purposes. The people of Inkberrow should not be made to pay that particular partisan price.
I canvassed in Inkberrow during the European elections. How much the people of this country care about European issues as opposed to, say, mortgage tax relief, is a matter of debate among Conservative Members. During those elections, people in Inkberrow were interested not in European matters but entirely in the boundary commission's recommendations, which appalled them.
We have an opportunity to correct the injustice. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, there is to be an immediate further review of Hereford and Worcester constituencies as a result of a transfer of Frankley into Birmingham. That opportunity should be used to correct

this enormous injustice. The boundary commission and the Home Secretary have a simple choice. They could use a different ward arbitrarily to make up the numbers in Redditch. There are precedents for that. Not so long ago, the parliamentary constituency in which Redditch was included was known as Bromsgrove and Redditch and wards to the west of Redditch were part of that constituency, yet the boundary commissioner has chosen to integrate into Redditch a completely new ward that has no historical relationship with Redditch. The alternative—and this underlines the point of principle about which a number of hon. Members have spoken—is to consider the possibility of creating a smaller constituency. If we left out the Inkberrow ward, Redditch would have 57,778 voters, on 1991 figures.
We have heard the figures for the Brent constituencies: the number of voters in those constituencies total 56,812, 55,433 and 59,070 in one large one. We have heard the figures for the Islington constituencies: 55,650 and 54,443 voters. We have heard that there are two Scottish seats with electorates below 50,000 and 15 largely urban Scottish seats—the new Redditch constituency would also be largely urban—with smaller electorates than Redditch would have without Inkberrow.
Incidentally, my counter-proposal would be to transfer the Redditch ward into the new Mid Worcestershire constituency. That would increase its electorate only from 63,596 to 66,011—still well below the quota set by the boundary commission.
My plea to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister is this: please ask the boundary commission to reconsider the proposal and to use the opportunity provided by the review of the Bromsgrove and Frankley boundaries to give Inkberrow some sense of justice. I declare an interest: I like Inkberrow a great deal. The people of it are being treated badly.

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not know what this statutory instrument does for the people of Inkberrow, but it represents the sentence of political death for a number of hon. Members, and nothing concentrates the mind of politicians more than impending political death. I join a debate in which a number of the politically undead are involved, but of course, associating with zombies has always been something that I have been happy to do in this place.
I compliment the Labour party and David Gardner, who was our national official in charge of making representations and of organising local areas to make representations to the commissioners. He and the Labour party did an excellent job. The various accusations that have been thrown from the Conservative Benches about Stalinism and centralised direction merely show how thoroughly my party did the job on this occasion. I congratulate all those concerned.
From a local point of view, I am pleased that the commissioners have recommended that the old Newham, North-West constituency should be changed to West Ham. The local people always wanted their constituency to be called West Ham or East Ham. They still feel like West Hammers or East Hammers, following the lines of the old county boroughs of Essex. The change has been welcomed by the people of the east end.
I said in an intervention that it is a slight pity that West Ham football club is still located in East Ham but, of course, one cannot have everything in life. From my point of view, it means that the new West Ham constituency will be more or less the old West Ham, South constituency, which was represented by Keir Hardie. Anyone in my party who is associated with that name is a proud person and that is exactly how I feel now.
There are some criticisms. I am concerned about the crossing of borough boundaries in London for the first time. Communities mean a great deal. London is not just one large conurbation, but a series of villages and constituencies. Unfortunately, the new Poplar and Canning Town constituency that is recommended in the order will mean the crossing of borough boundaries and the linking of communities that had previously no great affinity one with the other.
Anyone who understands the history of the east end can appreciate how people on the Isle of Dogs feel about not being linked with the southern part of Newham. I understand why it has been done: it is to try to build up constituency sizes, but it is a regrettable development in London and the first time that we have had to face it. We do not welcome it. The change in that Newham boundary means changing one of the oldest boundaries in London. The boundary of the Lea, particularly at Stratford, marks the crossing between the City of London and the county of Essex. There are many historical reasons why that boundary was maintained, but it is now to be crossed. The House should not welcome that, although I accept the necessity for it.
My other criticism is that the boundary commissioners, when they took other matters such as community into account, were interested only in equalising numbers in terms of representation. When we examine the numbers involved, our concern gathers pace. First, the bases for calculating population were mid-1991 and the census returns. In London, and particularly in Newham, we have strong grounds for believing that the census figures were inaccurate. After the census data were published, the census office conducted additional checks in my area, which showed that 5,000 people were missing from the published total of 212,170. That gave Newham a mid-year population in 1991 of 217,000.
Many people are missing from the census figures and, even more worrying, from the electoral register. Personal experiences are always worth while. At my advice sessions on Fridays, we check the names of the people arriving against the electoral register. It is worrying that many of those who come to the sessions are simply not on the register. We give them a form to complete and send to the electoral registration officer at the town hall. That is a useful exercise which over a year can bring more accuracy to the register, but it is worrying to note the number of one's constituents who are not on the register. I do not say to such people, "You are not on the register and not eligible to vote, so push off," any more than I would say to people who I knew had voted Tory—not that many do in Newham—that I am not there to represent them. A Member of Parliament has to represent whoever comes through his door, provided that person resides in his constituency. It should cause concern that a large number of people, particularly in inner-city areas such as those in London, are not registered.
During the opening speeches there were some exchanges about the method of registration. It is absurd that in this day of high-tech we still use an electoral register to give people eligibility to vote and underpin our democracy. It is worth remembering that people gave their lives so that the vote would be available to the largest number of people through universal suffrage. Surely in 1995 we can find a better way of registering people. Everyone has a national insurance number, so why cannot people have voter eligibility numbers or some sort of smart card way to register for votes? When people go to vote, they have only to prove residency and I am sure that large numbers of people would not decamp from one area to another to influence voting in particular constituencies. Many safeguards could be built into a more flexible method, to ensure that people did not do that.
The electoral register is crucial. The issue that should concentrate the mind of every hon. Member, from whatever party he comes, is that we are still prepared to accept this rather archaic method of compilation. It is an offence not to complete a registration form, but how many people have been fined for not completing one? The answer is probably a big zilch, but it would be interesting if the Minister could provide the answer.
The personal point for every hon. Member is the reality of the changes and what they will mean for us. Some hon. Members will leave the House altogether. That is terminal, and I can understand why some hon. Members are concerned about that: I would be concerned. Those whose constituencies have dramatically increased in size will recognise that there are implications for the work load, and it is right for us to raise those issues in the context of the report.
We get a bad press and it is worth telling people the sort of problems that we face when such a measure comes to the House. The order looks dull and arid, but it means a great deal to individual hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made that point very well. As I said, the commission is especially concerned about equality of representation, in terms of the number of people necessary to elect someone to the House. When my constituency had 46,500 people, it had about half the electorate of the Prime Minister's constituency. I maintain that more problems arrive in my office from 46,500 east-enders than the Prime Minister would ever get from the 96,000 people in his constituency.
Some Conservative Members shake their heads. People may write to the Prime Minister because that is what he is, but I am convinced that what I say is true. In an area as impoverished as mine in the east end, I am bound to get more problems about housing, social security, visas and so on than someone with a substantially more prosperous rural constituency. That is anecdotal and I should be quite happy to see the House apply its abilities to analyse the matter somewhat more closely.

Sir David Madel: My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) will confirm that a large number of Londoners have moved to Bedfordshire with exactly the same problems as they had in the hon. Gentleman's seat.

Mr. Banks: Of course I understand that. I am not suggesting that the case burdens of Conservative Members are not as large as mine. I merely said that equality of numbers is important from the point of view of


representation. But in terms of the work load of individual Members, one cannot just compare 96,000 people in Huntingdon with 46,000 people in the east end in Newham, North-West. People in my area come to me with far more problems than people would have in a rural constituency such as that represented by the Prime Minister. That is fairly obvious, but at some point perhaps the House could look at the matter, because it is crazy that we are all given the same resources, notwithstanding the different work loads with which we have to deal.
In the new West Ham constituency, seven wards of the old Newham, North-West constituency have remained and to them have been added three of the old wards from Newham, South. Bemersyde has brought in 4,372 additional voters; Hudsons has brought in 7,147; and Plaistow has brought in 6,381, making an additional 17,900 voters. Those figures are to be added to the 46,500 people in the old Newham, North-West, producing a constituency of 64,445 registered voters.
That means that the work load with which my office will have to deal will increase by 40 per cent. No one has said anything about additional resources, yet those extra people will come to surgeries with exactly the same sort of problems as those already in Newham, North-West. What other job could one think of, the work load of which increased by 40 per cent., but no additional resources were made available? People allocated such an additional burden would rightfully feel that they had had a pretty rum deal and would be very angry about it. That is precisely how I feel—not only personally, but on behalf of the people who work for me in my office in Stratford.
At the moment, as Members of Parliament, we get a fairly bad press. Therefore, it is even more incumbent on us to spell out the reality of being a Member of Parliament today to people outside this place. We may decide to accept all the cases that come through our doors, or, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, refer council cases first to the local council. I do not refer cases. Everyone who comes through the door comes to see me as a Member of Parliament and I take those cases. That means that more than 60 per cent. of my case load relates to housing matters.
If I were to refuse to deal with or—rather—refer people who have a council-inspired problem, my work load would lessen. But I do not think that I should do that. I am full time; councillors are not. People come to see the Member of Parliament, not the councillor. It is right to detail that point in the context of the report because, for us in the constituencies, the reality of its dry figures is stark and dramatic.
I welcome the report. I am one of the survivors, so naturally I would welcome it. I understand that others might not be so open-handed in their greeting of the report, having found that their constituencies are disappearing or having to compete with others and losing out. We should have a further extensive debate about the report's implications for the work load of Members of Parliament. If we did that, we would be treating the subject with the seriousness that it deserves.

Mr. Hartley Booth: I have listened to the debate with great interest. I was very impressed with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff)—soon to become the former hon. Member for

Worcester, representing Inkberrow and Worcester. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was interesting in praising the fact that he would be representing the heritage of Keir Hardie. He did not make it clear, however, whether that was of greater significance than his detachment from the football club that he obviously supported.

Mr. John Carlisle: He does not support West Ham. He is a Chelsea man.

Mr. Booth: He does not support West Ham.
I have been forced to speak, not because of my own position in Finchley. I do not wish to make any personal points about the boundary of my constituency. I did not submit any objection. Given the common agreement between the two Front-Bench teams, despite some disagreement on points of especial detail, I want to point out the way in which the commission and its whole process have become so bogged down in the detail, that it is as if its eminent and learned members, who are detached from the parliamentary process but bound by statute, have reached the stage where they cannot see the wood for the trees. A number of situations are best described as a Horlicks.
The first point that appears perfectly obvious to anyone who looks at the detail is that the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986—the basis of the report—states as its anchor that there should not be a substantially greater number than 613 constituencies. Following the report, there are 47 seats more than that number. Is the number of 47 seats not considered substantial? If we said that to the Chief Whips of the Conservative and Labour parties, would not they become incendiary? Is it not the case that 47 seats make up more than twice our current majority, with which we have been working for five years? The figure is obviously substantial, yet the report has proceeded with blind disregard of what is a common interpretation of the English language.
Let us consider only the English seats. The 1986 Act says—effectively—that there should not be a substantially greater number than 488. Following the report, there are to be 524 seats. That is an increase of 36 seats in England alone. Of course that is a substantial increase. I hope that the review announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will take that on board. It is an anomaly and it is absurd.
I wish to apply our minds to London. An average number of 69,281 registered voters in each constituency was set at the enumeration date of 21 February 1994. The boundary commission announced that it would apply a margin—in other words, a rise or a fall below 69,000—of 12,500 people. Having set its own rules, it proceeded on many occasions to break them, which is very unsatisfactory. The constituency of Hammersmith, as we have heard, contains 83,000 people, Orpington contains 82,000 people, Croydon, North and Croydon, South contain 80,000 people each—right on the margin—and Croydon, Central contains 81,000 people. The number of people in Islington has swung the other way. Islington, North contains 55,000 people and Islington, South and Finsbury 54,000. Together with Brent and others, those constituencies are all examples of the way in which the commission set itself some rules and then broke them.
The situation gets worse. The commission divided London into four working groups or secretariats, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South


(Mr. Marshall) referred. Each of those working groups or secretariats contained three or four boroughs and the commission admitted in writing that the configuration of the secretariats would have an inhibiting effect on how it would conduct the review. Then the commission purported to consult over the establishment of those secretariats. In fact, there was no full consultation with the public at all. On the contrary, the nature of the secretariats was concealed from possible interested parties. Subsequently, contradicting itself, the commission claimed that the secretariats were merely for administrative convenience. Then why consult at all, or purport that it might be consulting?
The commission also decided that it would not cross any borough boundaries—another inhibition on its process. Did we allow for that in the 1986 Act, in which we provided for its establishment? Not at all. It is all part of the so-called discretion that it has been given. Or is it there at all? It is a grey area and needs to be considered carefully in the review of the rules.
If the issue is not analysed properly and does not have democratic support, a number of problems could result. Arbitrarily designed secretariats are, in effect, mini-counties, which would be a precedent for future realignments of boundaries and other local government functions. It is not satisfactory for what is effectively a quango to create new local government divisions without the sanction of the House.
The mother of Parliaments has developed for 700 years. Two days from now, on 16 June, some of us will remember 16 June 1216 when, if our records are correct, the Magna Carta—the treaty between the king and the barons—was signed. We have this proud tradition, yet here we are in this supposedly perfect mother of Parliaments with a process that is riddled with anomalies. Perhaps it is the mother of Parliaments, but it is showing many signs of arthritis.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I have no complaint about the work of the commission and the report that it has produced. As far as my self-interest is concerned, the seat of Derbyshire, North-East will remain exactly the same.
There is one great problem with the report, however, because it is based on flawed information. Generally, the principle is to act according to electoral quotas and to decide the appropriate boundaries along the lines of those quotas, taking into account other communal considerations. The building blocks—electoral registers—are seriously flawed. If that flaw were random and were spread throughout the country, and if similar proportions of electors were missing all over the place, it would make no difference to this report. It would be a serious problem, but it would not affect the report. That is not the case, however, as the type of people who are missing from the electoral registers in the greatest number are unevenly distributed. The number of people entitled to be on the electoral register does not tie in with the principles used to redraw the boundaries.
Who are the people who are not registered? One problem is with the role of registration officers, who lack the considerable resources required and are often unable

to engage in the necessary canvassing activities to check that they have the right people down on the register. Advertising to encourage people to get themselves on to the electoral register is very poor. Compare it with the advertisements for the various privatisations and the fancy employment schemes, or the attempts to convince people that the Government are doing a reasonable job. It is a democratic disgrace that we do not engage in massive activity to encourage as full a registration as possible.
Obvious problem areas need to be confronted, such as the difficulty of getting homeless people on electoral registers. It is not the case that a homeless person is ineligible, but he or she must be able to claim to be associated with an area to be registered there, which presents massive difficulties. How much canvassing of homeless people do registration officers undertake to encourage them to be on the registers? Homeless people are unevenly distributed, so the shortage is more serious in some areas than in others.
Our method of compiling the register is antiquated and inadequate for the nature of our society. We register people in October and the registers are published four months later in February. By the time they are published, they are already out of date. They remain in use for a further 12 months, becoming more and more out of date during that time. If someone finds that they have not been registered on the qualifying date in October, they can be added to the register, but they cannot be added to a register if they move to a different area. So a register is 16 months out of date by the time that it is finished with and a new register takes over—a new register that is already four months out of date.
This system means that masses of people are missing from electoral registers. As I stressed, no provision is made for adding people to fresh registers when they move to a new area, or for taking them off the register in another area. The likelihood of gaining a postal vote is restricted if someone has moved to a new area.
Not only are the arrangements for determining who gets on registers inadequate, but, in recent years, the majority in this House has deterred people from registering. The poll tax was the biggest constitutional disgrace of all as regards electoral registration. It had its own register, linked to the electoral register, and it became known that the electoral register was the first place that the registrar checked if one's name was not on the poll tax register. As a result, there was a serious decline in electoral registration, especially among young people who were coming up for registration for the first time—a group of people known as attainers.
The attainer element of the register collapsed. If people wanted to duck out of paying the poll tax because of the great burden placed on households made up of a large number of people, the young person coming on to the register for the first time was the most likely to be missed off, as their name could not be checked from previous electoral registers.
The House has taken action to destroy the electoral register and it has not taken action to update electoral registration techniques in line with the needs of modern society. When we consider the measure in front of us, we must take that serious failure into account.
Who is missing from the electoral register? Figures that I have obtained from the House of Common's Library show that, since 1983, registration has collapsed by


2.7 per cent. of those eligible in England and Wales and 2 per cent. of those eligible in Scotland. Those are serious figures which are not based upon some random development throughout society. Only 88.6 per cent. of those eligible in Greater London are registered, while the figure for England and Wales—bad as it is—is 95 per cent. Furthermore, within London there are pockets of serious problems. I realise that within the eligible potential population, there is a small element of overseas visitors who must be removed from the total figure. That will affect areas such as the City of Westminster, but the fact that the City of Westminster has only 67.3 per cent. of its potential eligible population registered needs close examination.
Other areas that are more than 15 per cent. short in terms of registration—these are local government areas, as that is the only way in which figures can be compiled—include Haringey with 82.5 per cent., Hackney with 82.9 per cent., Camden with 81.3 per cent. and Brent with 81.3 per cent. In Brent, the Labour party threatened action through the courts unless extra action was taken by electoral registration officers to conduct proper canvassing to advance the figures recorded for that area.
The figures for those missing from the register are likely to be much higher in urban areas than in rural areas. An important survey on electoral registration was conducted in 1991 by Steven Smith of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The survey contains some important details as to who is missing from electoral registers. The report says that, on the best estimates, between 7.4 per cent. and 9 per cent. of people in private households in England and Wales are missing from the electoral register. That is a massive number of people, and a democracy should be concerned about those figures.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has done on this issue for a considerable time? He has been indefatigable in his pursuit of those missing people. Why does he think that he is a lone voice? Why are his concerns not shared by more Members? This issue is one of the most significant problems facing our democracy, yet it seems at times that my hon. Friend is a lone voice in the wilderness.

Mr. Barnes: In the sense that that is a compliment, I thank my hon. Friend. There should be a massive awareness by Labour Members of Parliament that this is one of the most serious issues facing democracy. We can talk about proportional representation, fancy franchises and different forms of constitutional change, but at the bottom of all that should be the provision that everybody should be on a register. That would be even more important in a proportional system, as the register would have to be correct to determine that the result was correct. I am not a lone voice. The other place had a debate recently about the state of the electoral register, and that House does not even have Members who are elected. We should be concerned about these matters.
Before I conclude, I wish to stress the figures for some areas in the survey of missing voters. The rate of missing voters generally is between 7.4 per cent. and 9 per cent. The figure for inner London was 20.4 per cent., while for outer London it was 10.3 per cent. For young people in the 21 to 24 age group the figure was 20.6 per cent., while for the over-50 group it was 2.1 per cent. More men than women are missing, with 8.3 per cent. of men and 6.1 per

cent. of women missing. Those who had moved in the year preceding the census accounted for 27.6 per cent. The figure for new Commonwealth citizens was 36.6 per cent. compared with 6.4 per cent, for United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland and old Commonwealth citizens. The figure for black people was 24 per cent., compared with a figure for white people of 6.5 per cent.
Members can look in detail at the survey, which shows that the figure is likely to be higher for those in private rented accommodation than for owner-occupiers. The figure for those in private rented properties is slightly smaller than the figure for those in council housing or housing association properties. There is obviously a massive social divide contained within the numbers who are missing.
If my interest appears altruistic in terms of my saying that the franchise should be right and that everybody should have the vote, it also turns out to be in my interest as well and is associated with my political position. It turns out that the people missing from the register are more likely to have a grouse against the Government than anyone else. It is matter to which we shall return.
We will certainly need legislation to provide measures such as a rolling electoral register which allows people to be added and removed as they move in and out of an area. If a person dies, he can be removed from the register so that he is not sent electoral addresses during elections. We must face all these matters solidly. Only when we get a proper electoral register with 100 per cent. registration of those who are entitled to be on it will we be in a position to divide up the cake around constituency boundaries as the report has done. Let us go back to basics, and get the basic elements right. We can then accept the work of the commission, which will provide equitable constituencies for us all.

Mr. John Carlisle: I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) will forgive me if I do not go down the same path as he took. We have heard him before on the subject, and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and I were regular attenders at what used to be called the summer Adjournment debates where we heard the hon. Gentleman on this subject. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was quite right to say that the hon. Gentleman deserves credit. This is a subject about which he knows a lot, and he speaks on it with passion.
I must apologise to the House and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, whose speech I missed. I was also a little late for the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The reason for that was that I was detained regrettably in the dentist's chair. It was regrettable because of the pain which was caused to me at the time, but also because of a comment from my dentist. When I told him that I had to get away to speak on a boundary commission report which affected my seat to such an extent that certain people believed that it could mean my removal from this House, he insisted that I paid before I left because of my future employment prospects.
I shall make a short contribution to an interesting debate. What an extraordinary place this is. Here we have a virtually empty Chamber during a rather low-key debate, and those who have reached higher places than I


am ever likely to—they are known as Whips—are rushing around either trying to encourage people to speak, or to prevent them from speaking so that the House can rise early for a good dinner, on a matter which will affect not just the employment prospects of Members but millions of people outside. It is something of an insult to the commission that the House has not seen fit to be better attended for the debate on a report which was a long time in coming and which has caused a lot of controversy. Members from whatever side of the political spectrum, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), have made their representations and pleaded their case by talking about numbers. The number of Members who have attended this debate is disgraceful. It is a sad reflection on the House that we shall not spend more time on and pay greater attention to a measure that will affect many people's representation in Parliament.

Mr. James Hill: Will my hon. Friend mention the fact that, at the end of this long debate, in which emotions have been aroused, there will be no vote, so those who are disappointed with the boundary commissioners' recommendations cannot express their hostility? That is quite wrong.

Mr. Carlisle: Whether there is a vote will depend on others. I shall keep the Whip on tenterhooks by not saying what I intend to do until the end of my speech. That will at least get his attention—I am sure that he would always pay attention to what I have to say—and the attention of the House, which may be tempted to drop off at this stage.
It is a pity that more hon. Members are not present and that this debate is not being fought at a higher level, particularly given the quality of speakers so far.
I must speak briefly about a matter of personal interest on the basis of the commission's recommendations for my constituency and Bedfordshire. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel) is present. It would be churlish of me to criticise the report and its consequences on my electoral prospects and, more importantly, the prospects of my constituency. The commission has recommended that the town of Luton return to its pre-1983 position, with two seats in a predominantly—in my case totally—urban environment. It would be churlish of me to object to that proposal as I was among those who supported unitary status for Luton. I was delighted when the Secretary of State accepted the local government commission's recommendation that Luton should enjoy unitary status. Two seats in Luton was, therefore, an appropriate decision at that time. However, the recommendation means certain difficulties and disappointments among my supporters. It could also mean my departure from this place.
Before Opposition Members rub their hands with too much glee, may I recount a short tale of what happened at the recent local government elections, which were not the outstanding success that the Conservative party had forecast. Indeed, we were down to just two ward seats in my constituency: one won by the princely number of 30 and the other by a majority of only 10. As I was expressing some downheartedness at that result, a group of Labour supporters, all of Asian origin and wearing Labour rosettes, assured me that I was not to worry about the disasters befalling the Tory party that night, nor about the boundary changes. They said, "You, Mr. Carlisle, are

bound to win because you are a fixture in Luton." So I would obviously have support from the Labour party in my town, should I be considered as a candidate again.
I wish to raise three matters about the commission and its report. The first is about membership of the commission. Tribute has rightly been paid to the commission and its staff for the job that they did, which was not easy. May I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that it would be worth while including on the commission two or possibly more former Members of this place? In many cases, in its anxiety to be fair and make its recommendations purely on the numbers game, the commission has taken little account—because it did not know about it—of what it means to represent constituents, and what it means to constituents when their lives are turned upside down by what the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) called an arbitrary rule of the pen.
May I use as an example two villages in my constituency, Toddington and Barton, which, before 1983, were in the constituency of Bedfordshire, South-West. In 1983 they were put in the Luton, North constituency and it is now proposed that the good people of that village should join a new Mid Bedfordshire constituency. They are totally confused because they will have had three different Members of Parliament in a short time. Naturally, they have built up enormous loyalties with their Member of Parliament yet, by the stroke of a pen, they will now be switched away to another constituency after only a short time. That is damaging to them.

Sir David Madel: I share my hon. Friend's anxiety. The residents of Toddington and Barton are almost dizzy with those changes. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are confused also because this time they will enter a parliamentary constituency that forms part of a separate district council? The commission should have shown a little more sensitivity. I hope that this is the last time that it messes about with Bedfordshire for some time.

Mr. Carlisle: I share my hon. Friend's sentiments. Even district changes upset people as they become accustomed to their representation and local council. Although, strictly speaking, those changes will not take place here, any change in local government and national representation upsets existing arrangements and loyalties are sometimes stretched.
I therefore suggest that when a new commission is formed it should include, among the great lawyers and so on, former Members of this place who could advise the commission on the effects of changes to parliamentary boundaries in a non-political way and point out the difficulties, some of which have been outlined on the Floor of the House tonight. I am glad to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary here to hear those words.
My second point about the commission's report is that Bedfordshire was the first county council constituency up for consideration and the commission returned to the pre-1983 position, which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) described as doughnutting rather than sandwiching. In political terms that was almost bound, by the old definition, to have had some effect on its political make-up, as doughnuts were always seen to favour the Labour party whereas sandwiches were seen to favour the Conservative party. Thank heavens that this debate has, on the whole, stayed away from pure party politics.
Even in my constituency, the parliamentary boundaries of which cross three different district councils, after the initial problems of mixing rural with urban an enormous understanding has developed between the two communities. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, who said that he wanted his villages to remain villages and have nothing to do with the nearby town—I think that he was referring to Redditch. It is good to have a mixed representation so that those who live in villages join, in political associations or whatever, other members of their constituency and understand that those who live in towns also have problems, and those who live in tower blocks in the towns can see that there are problems in the villages. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should know that just because some of us represent areas of lush green pastures where the problems may be different from those in urban areas, they are just as intense. Moreover, the representations that we receive, either in person at our advice surgeries or by correspondence, are just as great. However, no one underestimates the amount of work that he puts into his constituency.
Since 1983, we have built up a happy relationship between the two communities, which took some doing. But that will now be shattered by an arbitrary rule of numbers and a stroke of the pen. It is a pity because those sandwiched constituencies brought a greater variety to the House and gave the hon. Members concerned a far broader interest, from farming to heavy industry and from rural housing to urban housing. They made us better representatives and gave us a better understanding of other people's problems than if we had represented the narrow confines of a purely urban or rural constituency. In areas like mine in Bedfordshire, there was an opportunity to continue that through the division of numbers, but the commission chose doughnutting not only in Luton but, after an appeal, in Bedford. That has meant that in Bedfordshire, we now have three borough constituencies and three county constituencies, whereas previously we had four county constituencies and one borough. It is a pity that that balance has been broken.
Another fact must be considered. Those of us in whose constituencies dramatic changes are made must rightly continue to represent constituents, from wherever they come, and perform our duties for them between now and the next general election. That will be a difficult time for many of us, when the people in our old constituency will have moved away to new pastures.
The third and last argument that I wish to present to the House concerns numbers. It is remarkable that, in many of the earlier speeches, an almost unanimous anxiety was expressed that the number of constituencies has increased. Questions have been rightly asked as to why the commission chose to increase the numbers, and to do so at a time when the general consensus of the House would appear to be that those numbers should decrease.
I would be very much in favour of having fewer Members in the House, and if that meant that I had to leave, so be it. I have had 16 years, which I have thoroughly enjoyed. If those numbers decrease, it will help to shrink the ever-growing snowball of government.
I must say to my hon. Friends the Ministers that it is sad to see Governments now, with so many junior Ministers and Ministers of State littered about the

Government like nobody's business, with everyone having a parliamentary private secretary and so on and with the whole apparatus of government.
I remember that, when Baroness Thatcher—for whom I continue to have great admiration—at that famous victory in 1979, crossed the steps of No. 10, she quoted Francis of Assisi, but she also said:
I seek better government, but less of it.
I regret to say that that is one argument that I would have with the noble Baroness—that the amount of government has increased, and government is interference in people's lives. I should like the number of Ministers to be cut by half, and the number of Members of Parliament reduced considerably.
I believe that we are as capable of representing 85,000 to 90,000 people as we are capable of representing 60,000 to 65,000 people. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), with more than 100,000 constituents, is no less capable of representing those numbers than was our friend, now Sir William Benyon, in Milton Keynes, where the number of constituents shot up to more than 100,000. It did not lessen his representation in this place, and I believe that we could take on—I would welcome it—additional work on that basis.
Numbers should not necessarily be the criterion. Let us hope that this is the last time that a commission reports that numbers should be increased.
As a parting shot, I must comment on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). I am sorry that she is not in the Chamber because, as she said, she spoke really as a deputy chairman of the Conservative party rather than for her constituency. Blind loyalty to my leader, to the chairman of the party and certainly to my political following—I have no longer any political aspiration—prevents me from saying what I should perhaps say, and what some people have said to me, regarding the way in which Conservative central office has handled the whole affair.
In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and indeed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the chairman of the Conservative party, they were very late on the scene and they were handed something of a poisoned chalice.
I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden say that constituency associations in the Conservative party, unlike in the Labour party, were totally autonomous, made their own decisions and in effect were not answerable to central office. If only that had been the case during the recent argument about the funds that were going to the European Community, when nine of my hon. Friends were suspended from the Whip, and when area chairmen were ringing round the chairmen of those of us who were considering voting against the Government and saying that, if that was the case, we would not be allowed in the constituency office, we would have to be deselected and so on. That does not smack to me too much of associations being allowed the opinions of their own members. That was a small aside, which I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take in the best of humour; she always does.
I cannot say that I welcome the report. It would be somewhat churlish to do so. Like a turkey, today I may be voting for a very early Christmas. Having said that, I believe that the report has been thorough. Regrettably, it may not have been examined enough on the Floor of the House. I will not seek to divide the House on the motion.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my Public Accounts Committee kept me until just a few minutes ago.
I shall make only a brief argument. I do not believe that the boundary commissioners' recommendations take sufficient account of the way in which boundaries have changed and the way in which the relationship of the Member of Parliament with the local authority has changed. That has been a fundamental difference compared with what happened previously.
I remember my predecessor, more than 30 years ago, the late Lord Rhodes of Saddleworth—a great man, whom I deeply admired and respected and who was very generous to me and to the region. He had strong local roots, which I can illustrate by the fact that, as a Yorkshireman, he became lord-lieutenant of Lancashire. Not only was that unique but I never heard a whisper of complaint about it in all the years that he occupied that prestigious post. I mentioned that because his position was that he had nothing to do with the local authority. He used to claim that that was something separate, and he let the local authority get on with it.
Today, the position is completely different. One does have a great involvement. In view of the large amount of funds now made available from central Government to local government, it is inevitable that local government will make approaches to the Member of Parliament to enable it to be represented at the highest levels, where those decisions are made.
If one is to have that relationship between the local authority and the Member of Parliament, it makes it very difficult when a Member of Parliament becomes the Member for more than one local authority. That is the position in Ashton-under-Lyne now, because it will include part of Oldham and part of Tameside. The problem is that the distinct relationship that one should have now does not exist.
I do not believe that the boundary commission ever took that factor into account. It did not realise the changes that had taken place. People need to be made aware of the changes that have occurred.
I shall lose an important town in my constituency, the town that occupied most of my time even though it had only a small proportion of the population. People do that sort of thing, and so one becomes the possessor of the accumulated wisdom and understanding of a district. That will now go to waste. That is one of the inevitable consequences of boundary redistribution.
However, as I have said, the changes fail to take into account the relationship, which is absolutely necessary nowadays, between the Member of Parliament and the local authority. The boundary commission disappointed me by not taking that properly into account in its recommendations.

Mr. James Hill: I listened to the Home Secretary earlier and I have listened to some of the speeches, and I would not add my praise to the boundary commissioners. They started with Hampshire as their first project. They misled the whole of Southampton by saying that they were going to retain the status quo. After the first review in Winchester, it turned out that they were going to accept completely the Labour-controlled Southampton city council's counter-proposals, and that its plans were going to be approved.
Naturally, there was consternation in my constituency because the idea was that I should have my best ward, the gateway to the city, taken and moved to Romsey. That is the type of nonsense thinking that takes place in the boundary commission office—taking the entrance of a city and putting it into another place, almost a small town, and at the same time ensuring that the Woolston ward, which the boundary commissioners had moved to Eastleigh more than 10 years ago, was brought back into the city.
It all went wrong as long ago as the early 1980s, when, during a local government reorganisation, it was foolishly agreed to allow 15 wards for a small city. That obviously meant that the wards could not be separated evenly, with seven and a half wards on each side. A whole constituency can be mucked up, but wards cannot be split. That has been an on-going problem for the past 10 years and I am sure that it will continue to create difficulties. The ward that is separated from the city constituency always wants to return, and the same will apply to Bassett in this case. Perhaps the Home Office Minister will explain why wards are removed when only a marginal number of votes are involved.
If a ward in the city had been split, the constituencies of Southampton, ltchen and Southampton, Test would have each received 4,500 extra votes. As was mentioned earlier, it is perfectly possible to work a bigger constituency. When Horace King, the then Member for Southampton, Itchen, was elected as Speaker in this place, he asked me to deal with some of his house calls because he did not have time. In those days, it was possible for Members of Parliament to help each other.
The problems in this ward will go on and on, but perhaps that is what the boundary commissioners want. The status quo decision caused everyone to relax, confident that the commission would not do anything. Suddenly, like a bolt of lightening, the commissioners decided to move Bassett into Romsey. We called several public meetings at the time and more than 1,500 people wrote to the boundary commissioners. The commission began to realise that it had made a bit of a boob and that it had not given sufficient warning of its intention to accept the Labour-controlled Southampton city council's plan. So it conducted a second review.
The second review faced exactly the same problem as the first: which ward should be moved out of the city constituency? We were told categorically that a ward could not be halved. We did not want to lose Bassett, so we offered Coxford in its place. The Queen's counsel in charge of the second review said that Coxford was socially and economically unsuited to Romsey. That is a load of nonsense because Bassett—which was supposed to be suited to Romsey—comprises one third council houses. The majority of those who live in Bassett work in


Southampton, not Romsey. There is not even a bus route from Bassett to Romsey. The only bus route from Southampton to Romsey is situated on the western side of the city and travels through the Coxford ward.
There are 11,437 voters in the ward that I am losing and the one that I am receiving—St. Luke's—has 9,672 voters. So I shall be about 1,500 voters down. The point is that the city has been disturbed completely. The Home Secretary must take on board the fact that if one ward in a city is preventing it from becoming two or three constituencies, there is no reason why the ward should not be divided.
The commission began its review in the face of a bad local government reorganisation and moved on to an even worse boundary commission inquiry which has resulted in a real dog's breakfast. Unfortunately, we will not he able to vote tonight to demonstrate our disapproval to the commissioners. They have received quite a bit of praise from hon. Members who have had no dealings with them or those who are quite happy with the results of the boundary changes. However, those of us who are unhappy with the situation think that it is a dog's breakfast.
I hope that we have learned something from the exercise. I advise people to watch out when they are offered the status quo; it is a trick and a tiger trap. Bureaucratic quangos think it up to bring us low. Hon. Members relax; they sit back and they say to their followers, "That's it; that's jolly good." But from then on it is murder; it is purgatory. One must take so much action in a very short time.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I apologise to the House for entering the Chamber in the middle of my hon. Friend's speech. The ward to which he referred is to come into Romsey, which is part of the constituency that I represent at present. I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. Largely as a result of pressure from the Conservative association in my constituency, we managed to force a second public inquiry. We advanced the argument that Coxford rather than Bassett should become part of the new Romsey constituency. The social geography worked in Coxford's case, but I do not believe that it will work in the case of Bassett.

Mr. Hill: I thank my hon. Friend. It is nice to have that expression of support—especially from a neighbouring constituency—as constituencies do not always agree. At the beginning of the commission's inquiry, several different voices offered different solutions and that allowed the boundary commissioners to stand back and say, "They cannot agree, so let's see if we can put forward a scheme." But the boundary commissioners had not done their homework and they did not advance their own scheme. They opted for the status quo and they allowed everyone else to sort out their problems for them.
There would be no problems with the Southampton seats now or in the future if we were allowed to split a ward. Why is a ward so sacrosanct that it cannot be divided? That is foolish thinking. The Home Secretary—whether it be the present incumbent or a future Home Secretary—must reconsider the matter. We cannot continue to mislead constituents by telling them that all is well and suddenly jumping on them with another plan from another political association.
In this case, it was not a neutral plan: it has caused great hardship in the two Southampton seats. We will try to overcome the difficulties. My party workers are a redoubtable crowd and they will take up the challenge. However, at the moment the future looks very black indeed. We have a unitary authority in local government and we face many other problems. We will have to hold many committee meetings simply to discuss the changes announced today.
I think that we could have dispensed with the boundary changes this time; there is no reason why boundaries must be reviewed every 10 years. There is no reason why seats should have a similar number of constituents when we know already that many constituencies contain many more or many fewer people than others. I chaired the committee that divided Milton Keynes into two constituencies without any fuss. We did that in this place. Why can we not do it again from time to time? Obviously, we must examine certain anomalies, but why do we always have to go outside for advice and judgment? I do not think that that is always necessary.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hour is not late, but I know that we are hoping for an early Adjournment. I wish to air my protest; I am not happy that we will not have the opportunity to vote on the motion tonight, and I certainly do not believe that we should simply nod it through. The debate must be forceful enough to make the boundary commissioners realise that, even though they may be independent, they must consider the people whom their decisions affect. It is not a matter of parcelling people up into separate packages. I am sorry if I have gone on too long—I am sure that I have not. Nevertheless, I am glad that my protests were heard.

Mr. David Amess: The first and last Member of Parliament for Basildon is what I will become if the order is approved tonight. Inasmuch as it affects me, I am totally opposed to it. The boundary commission has raped the town of Basildon to create an extra seat in Essex. Instead of working down from the north to the south, as it should have, it worked from the south up to the north.
There is a place called Basildon. I thought that the world knew that. However, apparently the boundary commission has never heard of it. It is extraordinary and, frankly, I think that it is a disgrace, that a town that everyone knows, a town of 68,000 people—the right number—has been destroyed. We will lose two wards, Pitsea East and Pitsea West, with over 20,000 people. Over 30,000 people from Corringham and Fobbing, Stanford-le-Hope, The Homesteads and Orsett will come in from Thurrock to make a new constituency of about 77,000 by the time that we have a general election. To add insult to injury, the name has not even been changed.
Already, I sense when I get to my feet some Opposition Members wave goodbye to me as my name is called. I recall that happening between 1983 and 1987, and between 1987 and 1992; it is happening again already. I hope that the people who report on these matters will read the debate. However, there is no earthly sense at the next general election in the television companies bringing out their swingometers or having the analysts sit round poring over Basildon.
I will be the first and last Member of Parliament for Basildon. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is present, because he knows how strongly I feel that, at the very least, the constituency name should be changed. Those 30,000 people are not registered under the name of Basildon. The sensible change of name would have been to something like Basildon and Thameside or Basildon and Thamesway.
I telephoned the boundary commission this afternoon for the last time to find out precisely how it derived the name. I found the explanation less than convincing. At one point, I was told that the boundaries were all-important and that the name does not matter. Can one believe that? The name does not matter. Tell that to my constituents.
In the first Parliament in which I served, there were six Members of Parliament who had represented Basildon: Lord Braine; my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body); Sir Robert McCrindle; Sir Edward Gardner; Mr. Harvey Proctor and me. I do not forget Eric Moonman, but he was no longer a Member of Parliament. I am the only person to have represented the town of Basildon on its own. It had always been part of a much larger area. It has been a struggle trying to build up a community spirit and to get people to work together, but we achieved it.
The whole problem started when the constituency was formed in 1983. There were three inquiries—a fact that says it all. At first, there was to be a Basildon, East and a Basildon, West and if that had happened, none of the problems that I and my constituents face today would have occurred.
This is probably a false rumour, but I have read the tomes courtesy of the Library. If one reads the representations, by the end of it all, one suspects that there may have been a conspiracy of the three political parties. I find it extraordinary that, of the nine wards that make up the town of Basildon—Pitsea East, Pitsea West, Fryerns Central, Fryerns East, Vange, Lee Chapel North, Langdon Hills, Nethermayne and Laindon—the one ward, Laindon, which then had Conservative councillors—all the rest were Labour—was not included in the seat of Basildon. It was put into Billericay.
I think that history will show that the three parties perhaps did somehow work together on the third and final set of proposals so that everything they judged to be socialist went into the constituencies of Thurrock and Basildon and everything that was judged to be Conservative went into the constituency of Billericay.
When I went for my final selection meeting for Basildon, I turned on the television to hear that the person who was likely to be chosen to fight the Conservative cause in Basildon was our then No. 1 tennis player, Buster Mottram. 1 was surprised when I was elected. There were no Conservative district or county councillors. In 1983, we were the 114th socialist seat that could be won by the Conservative party. Of course, the media were not interested in the Basildon seat then.
It has been brought to my attention that I mention my constituency whenever I rise to my feet. My hon. Friends know that if I ha,' represented Bognor Regis, Brighton or

anywhere in the country, I would still have mentioned my constituency. I did not create Basildon. It was the media in 1992 who created Basildon.
I will explain what went on. The then Labour council and the then, supposedly impartial, council chief executive told the media that the Basildon count in April 1992 would be the first to be declared. The council employed Barclays bank tellers so that the Basildon result would be declared in an hour. The script was that I would be the first Conservative to lose my seat. For the three weeks of the campaign, I was hounded by all parts of the media but the script went wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It might be an idea to get back to this script.

Mr. Amess: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I find it extraordinary that the boundary commission has decided to change the old constituency of Basildon when one considers that the eight wards that I have represented have built up a wonderful community spirit. Opposition spokesmen were always delighted to visit Basildon, together with the media. It is extraordinary that, in spite of all that, the boundary commission has decided to change it and bring in an extra 30,000 people making the constituency the largest in Essex.
The final chapter in the remarkable story of Basildon closes and it has been a privilege and a unique experience to have been the first and the last Member of Parliament for Basildon.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I shall detain the House for only a short time. It is important, in such a debate, to put down markers for the next time that the boundary commission sits and considers our constituency boundaries.
I think that some of us who have seen considerable increases in the populations of our constituencies over the past few years are aware of the ease with which we can handle 90,000 or 100,000 electors. The time has come for the boundary commission, between now and when it next reports, in 10 years, to consider a radical reduction in the number of seats in the House. I would consider one of at least a third. We could cut the number of Members of Parliament to about 400, which would enable us all to have somewhere to sit and work in this place and would mean that we would not have to build new offices over the way. We could all pay ourselves a reasonable salary which would do away with the need to earn money elsewhere, a practice that is coming in for criticism at the moment. Now is the time to decide. However, such a decision begs the question, who decides who goes?
I propose for consideration the notion that all those hon. Members who are invited to resign their seats in order to achieve the reduction of a third in our number should be offered a life peerage at their current rate of pay. They could continue with their parliamentary activities in the upper House. I suspect that the authorities would be overwhelmed by the number of volunteers. It is a practical solution that the House should consider before we next come to debate the topic in 10 years' time.

Dr. Kim Howells: I support the recommendations that we are considering but begin by echoing the thanks that have been expressed by the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to Sir John Knox and his staff for the work that they have done. The boundary commission's review was never going to be easy, and it is clear from the contributions that we have heard today that many hon. Members are unhappy with some of the recommendations.
In any event, the Boundary Commission Act 1992 had presented the commission with a shortened time scale for its investigations and deliberations. The commission nevertheless succeeded in producing what I believe is a largely coherent set of proposals, which adhere to the standards on consultation and impartiality that must characterise its work. The proposals are generally consistent and, although they acknowledge and respect the importance of community ties, they make a real effort to stick closer to the principle of equalising electorates than have previous commissions.
The order will mean that the number of seats in England will increase from 524 to 529 and that the size of the House of Commons will increase from 651 Members to 659. The wide discrepancies in levels of representation between neighbouring London boroughs was one of the most unsatisfactory outcomes of the third review. Pairing has done much to alleviate the problem, and the particular pairing schemes adopted managed to reflect genuine communities of interest.
Pairing is not unusual in the metropolitan boroughs, which effectively have the same functions as London boroughs. Indeed, in Tyne and Wear, the commission proposed constituencies which virtually ignore the integrity of boroughs. For example, Gateshead has one whole constituency and parts of three others which it shares with, respectively, Newcastle, South Tyneside and Sunderland.
London, apparently, is still over-represented by three seats but in 1991 the register was particularly poor in London, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out. It is estimated that under-registration in some inner London boroughs in 1991 was more than 10 per cent.
The key issue is the representational integrity of communities and avoidance of the needless and arbitrary divisions of towns, which can confuse the electorate. Very few towns are of a precise size to allow for one or more constituencies wholly contained within the urban area without the incorporation of dormitory villages. Furthermore, geographical location—for example, being on the coast—may limit the distributional options available, as they do in Worthing.
The commission did not have a policy in favour of the doughnut rather than the sandwich model. It did, however, resist proposals to divide towns such as Ipswich, Peterborough and York which are currently largely intact. In York, the commission tolerates an electorate of some 14 per cent. above the average but maintains the artificial division of others such as Bedford and Colchester, which could reasonably have been reunited. In general, the commission was prepared to be flexible and place natural community links above less tangible concerns such as the integrity of local authority areas.
I shall concentrate on the difficulties facing the boundary commission in the context of it having to give effect to the rules for the redistribution of seats which form schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. I greatly welcome the Home Secretary's announcement that the Government intend to review the rules. As experts such as fain McLean of Nuffield college have argued, the statutory rules contradict one another.
Rule 1, as I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will recall, states that there must not be substantially more or fewer than 613 seats in Great Britain and that, of those, Scotland must have at least 71 and Wales at least 35. The current reviews have given Scotland 72 and Wales 40, a total of 112 to represent a combined population of just under 7 million. The addition of the 18 seats proposed for Northern Ireland to represent 1.5 million people makes a total of 130 seats. Under the terms of rule 1 and according to the electoral quota, England would be left with just 483 seats, give or take a few, to represent more than 46 million people. Of course, it has not worked out like that in practice.
Before the commission's review, England was allocated 524 seats—due to increase to 529—meaning that the total number of seats in the United Kingdom Parliament will increase from 651 to 659. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and others have said, that constitutes almost 50 seats more than rule 1 stipulates in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act.
Although rule 1 seems unambiguous, rule 4 discourages boundary commissions from crossing local government boundaries, and rule 5 requires the commissions to round the entitlements of some counties up rather than down when strictly the counties are entitled to just under half an extra seat. As Dr. McLean says, Parliament probably did not intend rule 5 to mean that, but it does. The commissions have awarded extra "rule 5" seats.
In addition, rule 6 enables the commissions to award extra seats to remote areas, and rule 7 creates a presumption against changing constituencies, which tends to preserve small ones. Rule 8 requires commissions to divide the electorate by the existing number of seats when calculating their target average electorate.
Taken together, rules 4 to 8 inevitably serve to increase the size of the House of Commons at each review. They therefore contradict rule 1. The contradiction means that almost anything is possible. It is a tribute to the expertise of the commission and to those such as Mr. David Gardner, who has already been mentioned, who helped to focus the commission's mind on these issues, that the commission came up with such sensible and coherent proposals. However, the basic contradiction in the rules, identified by experts like Dr. McLean, Professor Ronald Johnson of Essex and others, means essentially that anything that a boundary commission does can be justified by one of the rules—but so can almost any objection to it. As often happens in such situations when constitutional arrangements are at issue, the winners are usually lawyers and the losers are usually taxpayers and citizens.
Despite the best efforts in these islands, we have extremes of voter numbers per constituency which, to observers in democracies such as Australia and New Zealand, must appear haywire. For example, at one end of the scale, there are 20,000 voters in the Western Isles


and, at the other, more than 100,000 in the Isle of Wight. I understand that, in Australia, the largest and smallest districts cannot be more than 10 per cent. either side of the average and the electoral commission redistricts each state every seven years at the outside, whereas in this country it has been every 12 years.
In its latest recommendations, the boundary commission for Wales said that it was finding it increasingly difficult to operate effectively given the ambiguities and contradictions of the existing rules for the redistribution of seats, which form schedule 2 to the 1986 Act. Similar complaints have come from the boundary commission for England.
I commend acceptance of the recommendations. I urge the Government to act quickly to ensure that the commission's already difficult task is not made more difficult by a refusal to address head-on the contradictions in the rules and to bring to this vital component of our democratic system some clarity and consistency.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I welcome the support by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) for the report. Debates on the reports of periodic reviews of constituency boundaries have always been lively occasions and it comes as no surprise to me that the debate has easily lived up to that reputation.
It is right that hon. Members should have the opportunity to explore the implications of those recommendations as they affect individual constituencies and the representational map of England. The issues and concerns raised today from all parts of the House provide, as if it were needed, the best example of the argument for the existence of the independent commission that I could hope to develop.
The boundary commissions, by comparison, are required to be, and to be seen to be, independent of Government and political parties. Their task is not easy, but it is necessary. The House recognised that in the debates on the work of the commissions in 1983 and again during the passage of the Boundary Commission Act 1992.
It would have been extraordinary had we seen today no expressions of dissatisfaction with the results of the review now completed. I have no doubt that some of the issues raised could have been resolved differently had the commission operated to a different set of rules from those that Parliament has seen fit to approve. The rules review that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary outlined in his opening speech will provide an opportunity to look at a number of issues that have been raised and we shall certainly take that forward when the boundary commission report for Northern Ireland has been cleared later this summer.
As the hon. Member for Pontypridd said, the commission was required to carry out the review within the rules that are set out in the 1986 Act, as amended. We should be prepared to recognise that the work that the commission has carried out has been both painstaking and meticulous. The report reflects the high degree of objectivity which the commission has brought to its task.
In a moment I shall answer specific points that have been raised. I can assure the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has concluded that, despite recommendations made to him, the report has been so persuasive that he was convinced that a change to it would not be justified. He did not, therefore, consider it right to propose any modification of the commission's recommendations. I believe that to be the honourable and correct course to follow.
I shall mention briefly some of the points raised in the debate. I make a general proviso that, quite understandably, many of them were addressed to the commission rather than to me and, if I am not able to cover them, the answers are set out in the mammoth report by the boundary commission.
The first point was the ratchet effect of the rules, to which many hon. Members referred. There are two particular aspects which tend to increase the number of seats in Parliament with successive reviews. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), along with the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), were among those who mentioned that. Rule 8 requires the commission to calculate the electoral quotas for each part of the country by dividing the electorate by the number of constituencies existing on the enumeration date. For example, in 1983 the English commission agreed to recommend three additional seats on the basis of special geographical considerations under rule 6. Those seats, rather than being regarded as a temporary requirement, became incorporated into the formula for calculating the electoral quota, thus the base figure increased and continues to increase. Rule 5 also incorporates a self-inflating element.
I certainly consider those issues appropriate for inclusion in any review of the rules. The hon. Member for Blackburn and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) said that the review of rules should take into account the fact that the disparate size of wards creates problems when using them as building blocks for parliamentary constituencies.
Wards are used as building blocks as a matter of common sense and practice rather than as any requirement under the rules. Nevertheless, they are sensible building blocks; they are certainly understood by local and other groups, including party political associations. The point about the size of wards is relevant. In the metropolitan districts there is a statutory requirement that a ward can be divided by three to allow election by thirds. A review would certainly want to take that into account.
I should like to pay brief tribute to work of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which made four main recommendations: first, that there should be a fixed divisor providing a maximum number of seats in the home counties; secondly, that there should be an increase from one to two months in time allowed for submission of representations; thirdly, that the enumeration date should be changed to the date of the most recent publication of the electoral register; and fourthly, that there should be a technical change in the timetable for the next periodic review for Northern Ireland.
We accepted all those recommendations apart from the one about the divisor. We rejected that at the time because it would not provide a predictable number of seats from review to review, but that and other matters are still


outstanding. We have not had the opportunity to legislate on the three that we have accepted. They are certainly matters that a future review would examine.
Many hon. Members made a similar point about the naming of constituencies. I am aware that many are dissatisfied with the names.
Finally, and most predictably and happily, the debate would not have been complete without a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). The commission has set out clearly in paragraph 2.55 of chapter 2 of the report the principles that were applied to the names of constituencies. All the names that are now proposed have been published, and where there were any representations, they were fully discussed at local inquiries. That procedure seems a good and effective way of ensuring that public opinion can properly be taken into account, but a review could consider that.
There was some debate about the importance of electoral registration. I understand that, but there was insufficient recognition by the hon. Members for Blackburn, for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) of the facts.
The 1995 electoral register for England and Wales has the highest ever number of electors registered to vote—38.765 million. Electoral registration officers achieve high standards and we believe that the majority of eligible people are included in the register. We carry out an annual advertising campaign to encourage people to return the registration forms.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I am under great obligation to move quickly and sit down soon.
The hon. Member for Blackburn made play of the amount spent on advertising; about £680,000 was spent in 1994–95 on television and related publicity targeted at groups most likely to be missing from the register. Those are the groups about whom he was worried. A total of £725,000 will be spent on a new television advertising campaign and related publicity in 1995–96, similarly targeted.
The hon. Gentleman also criticised the amount spent on arrangements for advertising targeted at those entitled to the new overseas franchise. It seems to me that his argument about people who may be missing from the register here is strong support for the need to advertise to people on the overseas register or who may be entitled to be on that register. In 1990, £750,000 was spent on those and no further advertising has taken place since then. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that as an answer.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the benefits of a system of rolling registration. The rules set out in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 concern the way in which reviews of parliamentary constituency boundaries are carried out. It would be stretching such a review beyond reasonable boundaries—if the House will pardon the word—to include consideration of registration procedure, as proposed. That is more a matter for the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said that the rules review should be conducted with the full involvement of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The rules apply to all four countries, and I fully accept that it is important to

consult them thoroughly. She, and others, express the view that regard should be paid to the level of representation in Greater London. The 1986 Act, in particular rule 4, requires the commission to review London boroughs but makes no mention of Greater London. But the commission examined London's boroughs individually, and exercised the discretion given to it under rule 5 to propose some seats that cross borough boundaries, where that was desirable. The number of seats in all the London boroughs is 74–10 fewer than the current number.
The commission's reasons for and policy behind this are well set out in the report. It has moved at least some way in the direction that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends would like it to go.
Many hon. Members made a good deal of the higher representation in Scotland and Wales. Those countries have long enjoyed a higher degree of representation than England. That is reflected in the rules in the two ways to which many hon. Members drew attention. We have already said that we will consider the possibility of changing the rules once the fourth general review has been concluded.
As to the size of the House, a subject that entered the debate latterly, a number of comments have been made about it and about the process of growth, which is clearly a matter of some concern to hon. Members here in the Chamber tonight. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken careful note of that and will bear the comments in mind when he comes to consider the terms of the review.

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Baker: I apologise, but I am under pressure to conclude, and I want to try to answer all the points that have been made.
Several hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for North Devon, referred to the Isle of Wight and to whether it should be a special case. The commission went into great detail about whether it should be split into two seats and, as the electorates of both would have been low, decided that it should not. The hon. Gentleman and others perhaps underestimated the depth of the study that the commission carried out.
The hon. Member for North Devon also said that the commission's proposals for Wiltshire and Swindon were contradictory. It is certainly true that a large number of representations about Swindon were received. The constituency which the commissioners have recommended for the Swindon, North seat has been left with some capacity for future growth, but in the commission's view it was certainly an acceptable size.
I must apologise to all whose points I have been unable to answer in this debate. I assure them that the report contains detailed background information explaining why the commission took the decisions that it took. I hope that hon. Members will look at the report to find the answers.
This debate has been wide ranging and challenging. In those respects it reflects the task that the commission has just now completed.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Baker: I apologise to my hon. Friend—

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the debate go on until 10 pm? There seems to be some confusion about that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no confusion in the Chair's mind. It can go on until 10 o'clock—but it is clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Baker: I apologise to my hon. Friends—

Mr. Soley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Minister is not giving way, but he has said that he is under pressure of time. I am not sure why; I thought that the debate could continue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I am not aware of any such pressure. It is, however, up to the Minister whether to give way.

Mr. Baker: I give way to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).

Mr. Soley: I want to know whether the Government are really thinking about the size of the House, and whether they are prepared to enter into talks about it with other parties. We need an all-party approach to achieve what hon. Members on both sides seem to be contemplating.

Mr. Baker: I accept that an all-party approach would be necessary. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is listening carefully, has heard the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the Minister quickly comment on my suggestion that the membership of the commission should be broadened to include former Members of the House who may be more sensitive to the feelings expressed briefly in this debate? Hon. Members might have enlarged on them had the pressure of time not been so great. Would that be a good idea?

Mr. Baker: I apologise for not having answered my hon. Friend's interesting point before. I see some difficulties with it, however. I accept that former Members of this House have an unparalleled knowledge of the system and would thus be useful. I must point out, though, that the commission has to be completely independent, and be seen to be so.
The main point is that many former Members of Parliament, under the formula advanced by hon. Friend, will be peers in the other House. That struck me as a positive contribution to the debate. My hon. Friend's point is a serious one which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has now heard. The review might consider all these and many other points.

Mr. Luff: I will not push my hon. Friend to answer my points about the Inkberrow ward, but can he promise me a letter on the issues that I raised in the debate?

Mr. Baker: I am devastated not to have been able to reply properly. That ward is clearly an important issue and I shall certainly write to my hon. Friend about it.
The English commission and the report's recommendations have been subject to the closest scrutiny by the House. The common theme that I draw from this full debate is the vital importance of preserving the integrity and impartiality of the commission. The best way to do that is by not tampering with its recommendations when it has conscientiously carried out its duties within the guidelines prescribed by law.
There is plenty for us to consider in a future review and we have started to lay the agenda for it tonight. I invite the House to approve the draft order giving effect to the English commission's final recommendations, without modification.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

FINANCIAL SERVICES

That the draft Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.

That the draft Public Offers of Securities Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.

DEFENCE

That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 6th June 1995, relating to the setting of maximum levels of fishing effort for certain Western waters fisheries; welcomes the contribution this will make towards fisheries conservation, while permitting existing levels of fishing activity to continue, including by United Kingdom fishermen; and supports the Government's intention to secure appropriate enforcement arrangements in further negotiations.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Locum Doctors

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Ms Estelle Morris: I am grateful to have the opportunity on an Adjournment debate to talk about the accountability of deputising and locum doctors. Like many matters that are brought before the House by Back-Bench Members, the issue that I wish to raise stems directly from the case of a constituent and her family.
I shall explain what happened, and in so doing provide the rationale for the changes in law that I am requesting. My constituent, Mrs. Hilda Winstanley, died in March after a period of illness with stomach cancer. The family, which was very close to her, chose to care for her at home. Members of the family looked after her carefully, together with their general practitioner and some excellent support from district nurses, throughout the final months of her illness. She lived with her husband, son, daughter-in-law and grandson. It is a close family, the members of which have given each other support. Mrs. Winstanley was 57 years of age and the family had hoped for many more years together. It was a tragic 12 months for them.
On a Friday, the family's GP visited Mrs. Winstanley to monitor progress and to give care, support and medicine. On the Sunday, her condition rapidly deteriorated. Mr. Winstanley called the GP, to find that he had put his calls through to one of the two Birmingham deputising services. A locum doctor attended. What happened in the next six or eight hours left much to be desired. I am not a medical practitioner and I do not seek to lay blame on anyone, but anyone who has read details of the case can surmise only that the quality and standard of care given to Mrs. Winstanley on the final day of her life were not those that she should have been able to have.
Mrs. Winstanley was so ill that she could no longer take a pain-killing drug by mouth. She required diamorphine through a syringe drive, which should have been properly administered to her. For some reason, six hours passed before she was given that drug, which would have alleviated some of her pain. There are many elements of health care that are in question at that point. There is no doubt, however, that Mrs. Winstanley died in agony when she should have died in peace.
Mr. Winstanley graphically described the situation to me, when he told me last weekend that his wife had spent six months pleading with him to help her to live. She spent the last six hours of her life pleading with him to help her to die. That should not have happened. The technology and medicine existed to enable Mrs. Winstanley to die in peace. Mr. Winstanley, who had cared for her lovingly throughout their married life and especially throughout the final six months of her serious illness, feels that he let her down. When she needed help—when she needed a pain-killer—all his attempts failed to get the drug or to get the locum doctor to find it, to administer it to his wife. That is appalling. I think that we would all feel bad about that. We would all wish to God that that need not have been a description of Mrs. Winstanley's last six hours of life.
I make no judgment about who was responsible. It is not my place to do so. Mr. Winstanley felt that the locum doctor was at fault. He had called the general practitioner and he felt that the GP who attended should have been able to get drugs to his wife within six hours.
There are many questions to be answered. Why was the locum doctor not carrying the drug? Why did he not know where to get the drug? Why, eventually, did he write a prescription that was wrong and could not be carried out?
Mr. Winstanley decided to bring a complaint against the GP and referred it in the proper manner to the Birmingham family health services authority. It was only then that he learnt that because the locum was not a principal doctor, he could not bring the complaint against him. Instead, he had to bring it against his GP. That GP was the same GP who had cared for his wife with him for the six months of her illness. He had no complaints against his GP. His GP could not answer the questions that he wished to raise.
I attended the informal hearing of the FHSA with Mr. Winstanley and representatives from the community health council. The family GP was requested to attend, as is normal within Birmingham. As is also normal within Birmingham, he attended. The FHSA had no powers to call the locum doctor to attend the hearing. The result was farcical. In attendance was the FHSA informal panel, myself in support of Mr. Winstanley, the CHC in support of him, Mr. Winstanley and the family GP. The one person who could have answered the questions, the locum doctor, chose not to attend.
I was told clearly during the hearing by the medical member of the FHSA panel that the authority had no powers to make the locum doctor attend. It had requested that he should do so, but for whatever reason, he had chosen not to.
The FHSA's informal hearing could have been a healing process. If Mr. Winstanley had had the opportunity to ask questions and receive answers, he could have begun to understand what went wrong in the care of his wife on that fateful Sunday. He could have then begun the period of coming to terms with his bereavement a little more quickly. We all left the meeting continuing to be dissatisfied with the level of treatment that Mrs. Winstanley had received, not having had the opportunity to ask the questions that needed answering.
We established that if Mr. Winstanley wanted to bring a complaint against the locum, he would have to go to the General Medical Council. With the support of the CHC, he referred his complaint to the GMC. He received a letter two weeks ago from the GMC to the effect that if the council were to consider his complaint, he would have to provide a sworn affidavit. That offended him. I might understand why it asked for a sworn affidavit, but in Mr. Winstanley's mind, the council was almost saying that he might be pretending that certain things had not happened. In coming to terms with the loss of his wife, he feels that he has been insulted.
I know that it is necessary to pay to obtain an affidavit. The procedure may require Mr. Winstanley—he may wish to deal with the matter in this way—to go to a solicitor to get assistance in preparing an affidavit. The process represents another barrier in adequately voicing his complaint. The FHSA would have been a far better forum in which to raise his concerns. It is local. It is in Birmingham, and it took him only 15 minutes to travel to


the hearing. The procedure was informal—not everything was written down and recorded. There was an atmosphere conducive to sharing problems and responding to concerns. That was the environment in which Mr. Winstanley wanted his problems raised. The GMC alternative was not acceptable in Mr. Winstanley's case.
As I understand the law, a GP retains responsibility for his patient even if a locum or deputising doctor deals with him or her, unless that doctor is a principal doctor on the list of an FHSA. In Birmingham, there are two commercial deputising services, both of which employ principal doctors and other doctors. When a GP puts through his calls to a locum or deputising service, he does not know whether the GP who is sent to his patients is a principal or non-principal doctor. The calls are allocated on a cab-rank principle. During any one evening or off-duty period for a GP, some of his cases will be sent to a principal doctor and some may be sent to a non-principal doctor.
The results are unsatisfactory for all concerned. Some patients and some families of patients will not be able to bring a complaint against a doctor merely because he or she is a non-principal doctor acting as a locum or deputising doctor. That is something that is out of the control of the patient or his or her family.
It was not Mr. Winstanley's choice to call in a locum doctor who was not a principal. That was the way in which the system worked. That is what the family GP had chosen to do on the day in question. It is unsatisfactory for the patient that there is a two-tier approach to making complaints.
I have been motivated to initiate the debate because of my concerns for the individual patient and for my constituents generally. The more I consider the system, however, the more unfair I feel it is for GPs as well. I concede the principle that a GP should retain responsibility for his patients. I want that principle to be retained, as all of us do who are the patients of a GP. It is best that GPs attend their patients. They have an overall knowledge of patients' treatment and background. They know how they may react to certain circumstances. I do not, however, want my GP on call 24 hours a day. That will not make him a good GP when he is on call or attending his surgery the next day.
The GP's practice was a two-handed practice. I think that it is reasonable that at certain times of the week, for example, on that Sunday, a practice should call on the support of a deputising service. That is reasonable. I do not think that it is reasonable, however, that the GP should retain responsibility for every action of the deputising GP or locum during that period.
Let us think what might have gone wrong in this case. Perhaps the locum was not carrying the correct drugs. Perhaps he had not briefed himself sufficiently on how to get diamorphine on a Sunday in my part of the city of Birmingham. Perhaps he did not make a proper examination of the patient when he arrived and did not make the necessary judgments about what treatment she needed. Perhaps he wrote an incorrect prescription. Whatever it might have been, I do not honestly see how one can hold the family's GP accountable for those actions. It was not a lack of knowledge of the patient or of the background of the family that could have caused that error.
Those are examples of what the locum might have done wrong on that occasion. I think that he should be held to account. That is a principle that all of us try to adhere to in our jobs. Being a GP is an important job. Many of us would consider it to be one of the most important, because one is delivering a service at a time when a person and his or her family are vulnerable. That family was vulnerable at that time. Those people needed the best possible service that medicine could provide, and they did not get it. I feel that that locum, a properly qualified GP, should be held accountable for his actions. It is unfair to hold the family GP accountable for those actions, and it is unfair to deprive my constituent of the opportunity to go to the local family health services authority to try to seek redress.
I ask the Minister to address three items when he replies. First, I should be grateful if he expressed an appreciation of the difficulty that Mr. Winstanley is now in, and an understanding of how Mr. Winstanley feels that the system has let him down, not only medically—I do not think that the Minister is in a position to make a judgment—but it has deprived him of an opportunity to bring his complaint at a local level, in a supportive, informal setting, which the FHSA could have provided. Instead, because of the system, he must approach a bureaucratic organisation—the General Medical Council.
Secondly, I would like the Minister to comment on, or acknowledge, the fact that the family GP was being treated unfairly, in that he was called to a hearing and was held to account for the actions of a deputising doctor—actions that he could not reasonably have been expected to prevent.
Thirdly, I would like the Minister to give some indication that he might agree, after the debate, to reflect on the points that I have made and the issues that I have raised. Perhaps at a later date, after his considered judgment, he will feel it appropriate to change the legislation so that there is an arrangement whereby a local FHSA can hold to account any GP who serves patients on its list, in the same way that it can hold to account a principal doctor who is on its list. That is right for GPs.
More importantly, we all hope that medical mistakes do not happen—it is absolutely crucial that they do not—but if they do happen, and if people feel that they have not received the care to which they are entitled, it should be easy for them to gain redress, to ask the questions, in a local, supportive environment. It was not my constituents' choice to have a locum on that Sunday. My constituents ended up with a locum because of the way in which our health service is structured. It should not have meant that that took away their rights to hold the doctor to account for his actions.
It was a tragedy that my constituent died so young, when there was so much before her, for her and her family. Let us hope that as a result of that tragic death, there is a proper consideration of the problems, and perhaps an indication that we might be able to prevent this from happening to a family in another part of my city, or another part of our country, in future.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) for putting her case, in which she has been involved for some time, in a highly detailed way,


as a constituency Member of Parliament. I thank her for raising it in that way and for the way in which she made specific requests of me, to which I shall respond at once; I shall then go on to the more general matters that underlie the points that she raised.
I believe that there is a slightly more complete version of the procedures, which I shall set on the record and which I hope the hon. Lady will find helpful. I hope that her constituent will find it helpful as well.
I shall immediately respond to the hon. Lady's request that I express some appreciation for the position of her constituent, Mr. Winstanley, and I do so on two grounds: first, to express sympathy for the predicament in which Mr. Winstanley and his family found themselves following the tragic circumstances of the death of Mr. Winstanley's wife. That is clearly something that I understand in seeing a lot of what goes on in the health service. It is unusual, but it is a sad personal tragedy. I extend my sympathy to Mr. Winstanley.
I appreciate how someone in Mr. Winstanley's circumstances can find it daunting to have to go through formal procedures if they are to get their point across. That is why I hope that the hon. Lady will be satisfied if I explain where we are, and what changes are in hand about complaints, the Wilson report, which is now being considered, and say that we recognise that one of the most important things when somebody has been affected by the health service and is at a time of crisis is that we make the system as simple and as accessible as possible so that the circumstances can be fairly investigated and that person can get his or her points across.
The second point about which the hon. Lady asked me to say something concerned the family GP being unfairly treated. I cannot comment on that and I do not intend to do so. The intention of what I say will be revealed in my remarks about why it is important that ultimate responsibility must reside with a GP, and it is up him or her to decide how services, out of hours, principally, are provided by locums, deputising services or, indeed, co-operatives. I cannot respond as positively to the hon. Lady's second request.
On the hon. Lady's third point, of course I shall reflect on what she has said. What she has said about how her constituent has been affected by this tragic incident is extremely important when dealing with practical matters. I shall reflect on that, although I cannot give an undertaking to change legislation during this Adjournment debate, and she would not expect me to do so, but when I look at other matters in connection with complaints, I shall bear in mind all that she has said. After all, I am more interested in the practicalities of how all these procedures are brought forward rather than in their theory. They are designed to meet practical cases and practical needs.
Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if I set out a number of the principles and the detail involved in matters of this kind. Clearly, all patients must be confident that they are receiving services that are appropriate and to a proper standard. That is probably a matter beyond dispute. They must be assured of that, whether it is their own GP or a deputy who is treating them. It will not always be their GP. As the hon. Lady quite rightly pointed out, we cannot expect everybody to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. That is why there

are very firm and detailed arrangements in place to allow out-of-hours cover to be provided by people other than the person's GP.
I am pleased to be able to confirm that those principles are already firmly in place. That is the case already and it will continue to be so. Indeed, we propose changes to the NHS complaints procedures to which I have alluded, which will, I believe, strengthen the relationship between GPs and patients.
I was struck by what the hon. Lady said about the relationship that exists between her constituent and his GP. It may be helpful if I describe in general terms how doctors providing general medical services—GPs, in layman's language—are accountable for their actions. That happens in three ways. First, they must provide the full range of services covered by their contract with the national health service. It is important to remember that GPs are independent contractors, and that the arrangements between family health services authorities and doctors for the provision of general medical services are clearly laid down in the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992. A GP's terms of service are contained in schedule 2 to those regulations. So GPs are tied down by regulation in terms of what they have to provide.
Secondly, a GP must provide services to the appropriate professional standards, which are not left undefined; guidance on standards of professional conduct and medical ethics are provided by the General Medical Council. Thirdly, doctors must not be negligent in providing services. A failure in that respect would allow somebody who had suffered from negligent treatment to have access to the courts.
That three-pronged approach to ensuring that the services are specified and that someone is responsible for the way in which they are delivered means that patients will have effective redress against any doctor who delivers inadequate general medical care, even if that doctor is not their GP. I believe that that principle serves patients' interests well.
The hon. Member for Yardley is right to say that I do not want to enter into the details of the particular case that she described. Indeed, she would not expect me to do so, partly because it may, and probably will, be subject to proceedings elsewhere. However, in general terms, when a patient is worried about the actions of a deputy or locum there are three ways in which he may take action.
If the deputising doctor, even though not the patient's own GP, is a GP working in practice, the patient can make a formal complaint to the FHSA about him or her. That is relatively new, and we changed the regulations fairly recently in response to suggestions that it would be a sensible practical arrangement.
Even if the deputy is not a GP, the patient can still make a complaint to the FHSA about the deputising arrangements provided by his or her own GP, who can then decide what action to take against the deputy. Ultimately, the GP must have the responsibility because GPs take the decisions about whether to allow someone to stand in on their behalf.
I should like to add one important fact to which the hon. Lady did not refer: GP practices are, of course, required to include in their practice leaflets the arrangements for providing medical services when the doctors are not personally available. In normal circumstances, if there is


a proper flow of information between GP and patient, it will be clearly understood what arrangements are in place. Whether there is an arrangement with a deputising service or with a co-operative of FHSA doctors in the area, or any other arrangement, it should be brought clearly to the patients' attention.
If the patient believes that the doctor has breached professional standards, that is a different matter. Whatever the status of the doctor—whether he is an FHSA practitioner, a locum or somebody working in a deputising service—the patient can make representations directly to the General Medical Council.
I heard what the hon. Lady said about the difficulties that her constituent had had in trying to do that. Indeed, it is a difficult thing for someone in tragic circumstances to do. However, I ask the hon. Lady to understand the other side of the coin. A complaint to the GMC about any medical practitioner is a serious matter, and everybody must be concerned to ensure that proper procedure is followed. It is not a bad idea to allow the GMC to deal right at the beginning with what may be frivolous or ill-intentioned complaints—although of course I do not make that suggestion in connection with the case that the hon. Lady has described. The GMC must ensure that everything is well founded before a case is taken further, and that is probably a sensible provision.
The GMC is the regulatory body for the medical profession and approaches questions concerning shortcomings in doctors' performance from the perspective of professional standards. That path is currently being strengthened by the Government through the introduction of the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill, which received its Third Reading in the House on Monday this week, and which will change the way in which the General Medical Council can consider a doctor's performance.
That is a parallel point but still an important one, because it illustrates how concerned the House and the Government are on a continuing basis with such issues. The new legislation is important because it will enable the GMC, for the first time, to examine doctors' performance and to require them to undergo retraining. That change does not exactly answer the hon. Lady's concern, but it is a step in the right direction.
In the third instance—if the doctor has been negligent—whatever else happens, the patient will continue to be able to seek redress directly through the courts. I believe that those arrangements properly reflect the way in which family doctor services are provided.
Family health services authorities make arrangements with self-employed medical practitioners for the provision of general medical services in their localities, and family doctors' terms of service with the NHS require them to ensure that all patients registered with them have access to general medical care 24 hours a day. To dilute that responsibility would be a serious step, whose consequences might not be entirely desirable.
Clearly, the hon. Member for Yardley is especially interested in deputising and the FHSA "list". Of course GPs do not have a responsibility to deliver care personally 24 hours a day. They may delegate responsibility for patient care to another doctor acting as a deputy. Often that will be a colleague in the same practice, or in a

neighbouring practice—increasingly, doctors are working on a co-operative basis—or it may be someone employed through a commercial deputising service.
The individual practitioner must decide how best to provide for the needs of his or her patients. The best way can vary across the country. In some areas, a co-operative may be more suitable; in others, that is not practicable, so a deputising service is used. I know that the practice in the case under consideration was not large, but in a large practice it is sometimes possible to deal with the responsibility within the partnership itself.
However, a GP on the FHSA list will be held responsible for ensuring that the appropriate services are provided to the patient at all times. That ensures that any deputy used will be suitably qualified in the demands of general practice. The responsibility rests firmly with the doctor within the FHSA, who is primarily accountable for his or her patient's care.
Where a commercial deputising service is used, we have instituted extra safeguards, which I would like to take the opportunity to place on the record. Responsibility for monitoring the standards of such services rests with individual family health services authorities. Family health services authorities also ensure that the extent of their use by individual doctors is reasonable, and satisfy themselves that arrangements for their use have proper regard to the interests of patients and doctors alike. There cannot be a simple resigning of responsibility to a service over which there is no control, and clearly the FHSA takes a close interest in the standards of such services.
None the less, individual general practitioners provide patient care, and it is they who decide whether to employ a commercial deputising service. Doctors employing such services must accept personal responsibility if the doctor working for the deputising service is not on a family health services authority medical list. If that doctor is not on an FHSA list and the FHSA has no control of the quality, unless the GP took on the responsibility there would be a dangerous gap, which must not be allowed to open.

Ms Estelle Morris: I take everything that the Minister has said so far and I approve of the legislation that has just gone through Parliament in relation to extra powers to the General Medical Council. However, he has not yet dealt with one principle that the lay person finds difficult to understand: how does the Minister justify the fact that a professional, properly qualified person going about his job should not be held personally accountable for the way in which he does that job?
I understand the point about the contractual arrangements: a general practitioner would be at fault if he had not contracted properly for adequate cover while he was out of the city or unavailable and if he had used a practice that was not approved by the family health services authority. The Birmingham deputising service, however, is approved by the FHSA. The Minister has not yet dealt with the kernel of the issue: how come we have a system where professionals can pass off responsibilities for their professional action to another person? It is as simple as that for my constituents.

Mr. Malone: I am not quite certain that I have understood the hon. Lady. I thought that she started out by asking: how come, say, a deputy could manage to slip away from responsibility?

Ms Morris: indicated assent.

Mr. Malone: I have understood the hon. Lady's point. As I have explained, the answer is that that person cannot slip away from that responsibility. Let us take not a precise case but a fictitious case of a deputising doctor who, it is clear, has committed an act of negligence. If he does come within the FHSA, the right of redress is available in a number of ways. The first is through the courts. If the matter involves not purely negligence but professional misconduct, it can be raised with the GMC.
The hon. Lady's complaint is that a lot of that is extremely complex. Perhaps in her eyes it is not an entirely satisfactory way of dealing with the matter; she has explained that her constituent is deeply troubled and does not wish to go through those routes. I remind her, however, that there are two other routes. There is the informal process, which I understand has been tried in this case, with few powers of compulsion. The reason for that is that it is designed properly to be a dispute resolution that remains as close as possible to the patient.
An informal process, however, requires the co-operation of all those involved. Let us say, for example, that a complaint had been made against an FHSA-registered general practitioner. There is no compulsion in ensuring that the FHSA is involved in the informal process. As a principle, that could cause difficulties. There is the more formal route to sort out a formal complaint. It is then the GP principal, who has passed on the responsibility, who has to involve the deputy or locum who has been accused of misconduct or malpractice, bringing him into the system.
In the current context, it is not possible to leave a gap where the ultimate responsibility must be in the hands of the GP principal who assigns the obligation temporarily to someone out of hours.

Ms Morris: I should like to raise two points and perhaps to fill in a bit of background. Having spoken to the FHSA, I understand that it is common practice and the done thing in Birmingham—although at an informal hearing this is optional—for doctors to attend the informal session. That is much to be praised. They turn up voluntarily; that is the cultural background against which this incident has happened and that needs to be understood. The comparison with the GP who was a locum and who refused to turn up was unheard of. There are not other cases where that has happened if a principal doctor is involved.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister appreciates that, as politicians, it is always right for us to set structures and formalities. There is a danger, however, that sometimes we believe that structures will answer problems. Sometimes it is the informal nature of a setting, the way in which one can talk and discuss and the healing process—I have used that phrase before—that do the good.
The informal hearing of the FHSA seemed a better atmosphere and environment in which to begin to sort out such a problem. I thought that it was a shame that someone should be forced to go to the more formal setting when an informal setting might have been satisfactory. It

is a tragedy that patients are deprived of the informal setting and opportunity in cases involving a locum doctor who is not a principal practitioner.

Mr. Malone: I agree with the hon. Lady and I am delighted to hear that, in Birmingham, it is the general practice that informal proceedings work and that all participating parties attend and attempt to resolve matters in that way. That is clearly the best way, but one is always obliged, within an informal setting where there is a process, to understand that someone may not want to participate in that process. People may feel that they are at some risk and that some facts will be adduced at the informal hearing that could be used against them. One can understand that.
Often, one cannot compel everyone, by the logic of it, to attend an informal hearing. People may think that matters of substance are at risk in terms of their career if they happen to be a doctor. They may want everything to be done formally, where rules of evidence apply more strictly. I agree with the hon. Lady, however, that, where possible—this is the whole point about introducing informal procedures under formal structures where one gets proper rights of address if matters are in dispute—such things should be encouraged. I am delighted to hear that, in the main, they work well in Birmingham. All those who contribute to that are to be congratulated.
I concede that formal FHSA procedures can appear daunting, not just to patients but often to GPs. In response to that, the Government have published, as the hon. Lady is aware, proposals for a new complaints procedure for the NHS which will be implemented from April 1996. The current complexity of the formal complaints procedure will be replaced by a system that is simpler and fairer to patients, practitioners and staff. All in all, that represents an impressive array of safeguards that ensure that all doctors, including deputies, are accountable for the care that they deliver. That is one of the great strengths of general practice. We are continuing to build on that.
I say again to the hon. Lady that I am sorry that, in the case of her constituent, we did not already have in place the new procedures which could have been more effective in resolving the problems that he has faced. I again reiterate my personal sympathy for him and his family, in what has clearly been a difficult time. I am sure that the matters that the hon. Lady has raised will inform the debate about how the new procedure becomes embedded and that this difficulty will be taken into account. I give her an undertaking that I shall ensure that that happens.
I hope that, by other means, the hon. Lady's constituent is able to gain some degree of satisfaction or at least an understanding of what took place at that terrible moment in the family's life. I congratulate her on representing her constituent's case in such a constructive and purposeful way so that his particular dilemma may be resolved, There could also be some lasting benefit from drawing the matter to the attention of the Government as we move forward in that area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Nine o'clock.